Case law

Matthews v. Martin

280 Ark. 345 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 1983

The legislature promptly enacted Act 165 of 1969 reinstating municipal immunity to tort liability as a matter of public policy. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 12-2901 (Repl. 1979). In Hardin v. … The immunity granted to municipalities extends to the city’s officials and employees. Jones v. Sewer Improvement District No. 3, 119 Ark. 166 , 177 S.W. 888 (1915). Affirmed.

City of Farmington v. Smith

366 Ark. 473 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 2006

were violative of a clearly established law. … they knew their actions violated any clearly established laws.

Fegans v. Norris

351 Ark. 200 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 21, 2002

A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and raised a genuine issue … The appellee officials are immune from suit in this action because they did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Robinson v. Beaumont

291 Ark. 477 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 16, 1987

This immunity is guaranteed so long as the actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the complaint fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law the defense of qualified immunity is appropriate and the suit should not be allowed to proceed.

Baldridge v. Cordes

350 Ark. 114 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 26, 2002

Qualified Immunity A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and … Thus, 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. Virden v.

Blevins v. Hudson

489 S.W.3d 165 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2016

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when they are performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, courts evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the-plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Banks v. Jones

575 S.W.3d 111 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2019

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under Section 1983 unless they transgress "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Banks is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged, construed in a light most favorable to Jones, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at

City of Fayetteville v. Romine

373 Ark. 318 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 2008

violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is 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. … his conduct violated that clearly established right.

Sullivan v. Coney

427 S.W.3d 682 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 23, 2013

right is clearly established, and (3) raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … that his conduct violated that clearly established right.

Smith v. BRT

363 Ark. 126 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 30, 2005

Under that analysis, a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established, … qualified immunity under Ark.

Boyle Ventures, LLC v. City of Fayetteville

711 S.W.3d 280 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 2025

“A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and raised a genuine … 21  would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

Virden v. Roper

302 Ark. 125 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 1990

The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established. Robinson v. Beaumont, supra; Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985); and see Cohen v. … They maintain in the alternative if a violation of a constitutional right occurred, it is not a “clearly established” right and, hence, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity under Mitchell, supra.

Robinson v. Langdon

333 Ark. 662 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1998

Fitzgerald, the [government official] will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Shuffield had “fair warning” that he was violating a clearly established right in determining that the allegation of abuse was “founded.”

Martin v. Haas

556 S.W.3d 509 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 11, 2018

That case is clearly not on point. … elections in this State are legally qualified to vote in such elections" modifies the requirement of "establish[ing] a system of permanent personal registration."

Christopher H. Harris v. Asa Hutchinson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Arkansas; And Patrick Fisk, Individually and in His Official Capacity

591 S.W.3d 778 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 2020

The General Assembly clearly intended to subject the State to liability under the AWBA. Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-602(5); Smith v. … , the legislature has established the Arkansas State Claims Commission so that claims against the State may be addressed while preserving the State’s sovereign immunity.

Newton v. Etoch

332 Ark. 325 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 19, 1998

Clearly, the State has not been named as a party, but our inquiry does not stop there. We established the test for whether a suit is one brought against the State in Page v. … Supreme Court has distinguished qualified immunity and absolute immunity by stating that qualified immunity depends on the circumstances and the prosecutor’s motives, as established by the evidence. Imbler v.

Rainey v. Hartness

339 Ark. 293 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 2, 1999

Qualified Immunity — Federal Law Generally, government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar … Courts evaluating a claim of immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Graham v. Cawthorn

427 S.W.3d 34 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 18, 2013

Under that analysis, a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established, and … Brt, supra (emphasis added). 5 The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that “courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without

Benton School District Lori Bacon, in Her Individual and Official Capacity And Lita Gattis, in Her Individual and Official Capacity v. Brandi Greer

677 S.W.3d 799 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 9, 2023

Section 1983 establishes a federal cause of action that can be filed in either state or federal court. Newton v. Etoch, 332 Ark. 325, 334, 965 S.W.2d 96, 100 (1998). … Smith, 366 Ark. 473, 480, 237 S.W.3d 1, 6 (2006) (finding no qualified immunity under section 301 because the official violated clearly established law); Smith v.

Early v. Crockett

436 S.W.3d 141 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2014

“Under the standard of qualified immunity articulated in Harlow v. … “The more critical inquiry for qualified-immunity purposes is whether it was ‘objectively legally reasonable’ for the prison officials to believe that [their] conduct did not violate the inmate’s clearly established Eighth