Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,912 results
2.22s
Arkansas State Medical Board v. Byers
521 S.W.3d 459 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2017
To stave off summary judgment on qualified immunity, a civil-rights plaintiff must assert a constitutional violation, demonstrate that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raise a genuine issue of fact … as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.
Cited 18 timesPublished592 S.W.3d 619 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 16, 2020
Under that standard, Appellees are entitled to statutory immunity unless they transgress “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” See Rainey v. … The factual allegations within the complaint failed to establish an exception to sovereign immunity and avoid statutory immunity.
Cited 12 timesPublishedReginald R. Early v. Keith Crockett, Clayborn Carroll, Roberta Lewis, and Lamon Mayo
2019 Ark. 274 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 2019
Appellees, as state employees, are protected by qualified immunity. See Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-305 (Supp. 2017). State employees’ qualified immunity extends to section 1983 claims. See Robinson v. … Under the standard of qualified immunity, a government official will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate a clearly established statutory constitutional right of which a reasonable person would
Cited 1 timesPublished453 S.W.3d 674 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 2015
The two-part test for judicial immunity established by Stump, 435 U.S. 349, requires that we determine whether the judge named by appellant in the complaint had jurisdiction to act on the in rem complaint filed in Miller … When the actions of a prosecuting attorney involve his role as an administrator or investigator, he is entitled to qualified, rather than absolute, immunity.
Cited 5 timesPublished297 Ark. 444 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 17, 1989
Both of these cases concerned qualified privilege or immunity. … It was clearly a privileged publication. Neither the allegations in the complaint nor other matters presented to the court, even if established at trial, would support a finding of malice.
Cited 33 timesPublishedNucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines
326 Ark. 217 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 7, 1996
The qualified immunity claim is a claim of right which is separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the complaint. . . . … Beaumont, supra, and stated: “The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established.” Virden v. Roper, 302 Ark. at 128 , 788 S.W.2d at 472 .
Cited 41 timesPublishedFore v. Circuit Court of Izard County
292 Ark. 13 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 20, 1987
undisputed and the writ is clearly warranted. … Beaumont, 291 Ark. 477 , 725 S.W.2d 839 (1987), that the defense of qualified immunity presents an exception to this rule. The present defense is based upon a claim of statutory immunity.
Overruled on other grounds by Wise Co., Inc. v. CLAY CIRCUIT, EASTERN DIST., 315 Ark. 333 (1994)Cited 23 timesPublishedArkansas Department of Environmental Quality v. Al-Madhoun
374 Ark. 28 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2008
The circuit court further ruled that qualified immunity did not apply to the individual defendants because there was an exception to qualified immunity for malicious acts and intentional torts under Ark. … In response, Appellees assert that the employees are not entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities.
Cited 15 timesPublished2020 Ark. 136 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 9, 2020
They were not involved in employment decisions at Arkansas Steel Associates, such as hiring or firing employees, paying wages, training, providing workers’ compensation or other benefits, or establishing work schedules. … In other words, “referential and qualifying phrases, where no contrary intention appears, relate only to the last antecedent.”
Cited 5 timesPublished489 S.W.3d 636 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2016
For example, “qualified immunity” is defined as the “[a]ffirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raised a genuine
Cited 11 timesPublished369 Ark. 447 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2007
In this regard, Simons argues that Marshall failed to allege facts sufficient to establish malice and in the absence of malice, he is entitled to qualified immunity under section 19-10-305(a). … There, this court recognized that an official is immune from suit if his actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.
Cited 26 timesPublished290 Ark. 250 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1986
was not entitled to a qualified immunity. … Forsyth, supra, it is clearly stated that the qualified immunity of federal officials is an immunity from suit, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
Cited 12 timesPublished452 S.W.3d 575 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2014
clearly established and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.
Cited 13 timesPublished303 S.W.3d 46 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2009
We disagree and hold that the qualified immunity afforded by section 21-9-301 must be asserted and proven as an affirmative defense. … In addition, in discussing the difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity, this court has stated (in a somewhat different context) that, while absolute immunity “bars a suit at the outset,” qualified immunity
Cited 11 timesPublishedOzarks Unlimited Resources Cooperative, Inc. v. Daniels
333 Ark. 214 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 1998
Roper, 302 Ark. 125, 128 , 788 S.W.2d 470 (1990), we noted that: “The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established.” Id. … Accordingly, the instant case falls within the well-settled line of cases permitting review of summary-judgment denials based on qualified immunity, and warrants our review.
Cited 34 timesPublished423 S.W.3d 75 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 27, 2012
, A PERSON SUBMIT TO THE STATE A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION FROM A PHYSICIAN THAT HE OR SHE IS SUFFERING FROM A QUALIFYING MEDICAL CONDITION; ESTABLISHING AN INITIAL LIST OF QUALIFYING MEDICAL CONDITIONS; DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT … MARIJUANA PROGRAM; SETTING CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA BY QUALIFYING PATIENTS; ESTABLISHING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA; ESTABLISHING REGISTRATION AND OPERATION REQUIREMENTS
Cited 8 timesPublishedJackson v. Sparks Regional Medical Center
375 Ark. 533 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2009
This court has also established eight factors to consider when determining whether an entity is entitled to charitable immunity: (1) whether the organization’s charter limits it to charitable or eleemosynary purposes; (2) … The Scamardo I decision upheld the principle established in Clayborn v.
Cited 32 timesPublished628 S.W.3d 629 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 16, 2021
conduct violated that clearly established right. … Otherwise, a state official is immune from individual-capacity suits if his or her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge. Id.
Cited 20 timesPublished377 S.W.3d 211 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 30, 2010
He said: Additionally, both defendants are employees of governmental entities and are thus entitled to qualified immunity. … We agree with appellants that section 21-9-301(a) does not include a maliciousness element and that it clearly cites an exception as to immunity to the extent of liability insurance.
Cited 21 timesPublished2022 Ark. 86 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 14, 2022
None of the facts and legal allegations established that the Attorney General exceeded any legal authority. Part B. … When determining whether State officers are entitled to statutory immunity, we have traditionally been guided by the standard used for qualified-immunity claims in federal civil rights actions. Banks v.
Cited 1 timesPublished
Ask Donna