Case law

Byer v. Gordos Arkansas, Inc.

712 F. Supp. 149 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 20, 1989

If plaintiff’s witnesses are correct, then quite clearly Flint and Gordos Arkansas are “integrated” to some degree. … Lackey clearly availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in Arkansas which affected Arkansas residents.

Horton v. Simer

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 31, 2019

Alternatively, Deputy Simer would be entitled to qualified immunity. … Deputy Simer is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Powell v. State of Arkansas

310 F. Supp. 142 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 25, 1970

, nor does it confer immunity from prosecution in state court on such charges. … But before establishing the regime the individual petitioners propose, Congress would no doubt fully consider many questions.

McNutt v. United Gas, Coke & Chemical Workers

108 F. Supp. 871 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 17, 1952

Therefore, venue in this district would be proper only if it is “otherwise provided by law”, and no such law establishing proper venue in this district has been brought to the attention of the Court. … Since there is no question in the instant case of either equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, clearly 8 U.S.C.A. Section 47 has no application.

Morgan v. Washington County, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 7, 2022

a constitutional violation; and (6) the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Further, having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, Officer Harris is entitled to qualified immunity.

Martz v. Simmons

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 14, 2019

As noted above, the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the law regarding substantive due process in connection with extended detentions was clearly established in 2016. … Accordingly, as Plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, the Court finds that Sheriff Simmons is not entitled to qualified

Hagen v. Payne

222 F. Supp. 548 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 17, 1963

This immunity rule is based on the “no funds” theory, Fordyce v. Women’s Christian Nat. Library Ass’n, (1906) 79 Ark. 550 , 96 S.W. 155 , 7 L.R.A.,N.S., 485, and upon the sovereign immunity doctrine, Handley v. … L.R.2d, Sec. 8, p. 1189, the annotator states: “Frequently the cases do not indicate clearly whether the defendant driver of a school bus was operating as an employee of the school district or as an independent contractor

Correia v. Jones

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 24, 2018

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know.” Ferguson v. … In ruling on a qualified immunity defense, the Court should (1) determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of a constitutional right at all; and (2) decide whether the right at issue was “clearly established

Toney v. Dickson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine provides “that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for … civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Tasby v. Peek

396 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 20, 1975

He listed no licensed, enrolled or qualified attorney as being of counsel and no one has signed the pleading as an attorney representing Johnnie Tasby. … Clearly, such a claim is not based upon a deprivation of a right secured under 42 U.S.

Vasquez v. Hill

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 1, 2018

Qualified Immunity Analyzing a claim of qualified immunity requires a two-step inquiry. Jones v. McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2012). … was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Scharnhorst v. Cantrell

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 10, 2023

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY To determine whether the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, this Court conducts a two-part inquiry: “(1) whether the facts, viewed … to protect” or “unconstitutional conditions of confinement,” qualified immunity nevertheless bars Plaintiff’s claims because those rights were not “clearly established” at the time.

Elkins v. Miller County, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 22, 2019

qualified immunity claims in federal civil rights actions. … violated that clearly established right.

Rhodes v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Rhodes)

155 B.R. 491 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 18, 1993

“Failure to proffer credible evidence of damages results in an inability for Debtors to qualify for damage awards.” In re Still, 117 B.R. 251, 254 (Bankr.E.D.Tex.1990). … We conclude the debtors met their burden of establishing actual damages and that the bankruptcy court’s action in offsetting the entire claim of the IRS was correct and proper. III. CONCLUSION.

Jackson v. M.F.A. Mutual Insurance

169 F. Supp. 633 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 1, 1958

Co., supra, are summarized here together with additional facts established at the second hearing. … The rule is thus stated at page 574, section 213, 2 C.J.: ‘It is essential to the application of the above general rule (as to apparent authority) that two important facts be clearly established: (1) that the principal held

Stompingbear v. Reed

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 2, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … , and also that the right was clearly established.

Leeuwen v. Boone County Officer Cameron

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 22, 2021

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In order to overcome the protection afforded by qualified immunity, the plaintiff must put forth “sufficient evidence to find a violation of a Constitutional right, . . .

Riles v. Carroll County, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 24, 2025

Qualified immunity protects officials who commit constitutional violations from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … “Whether a given set of facts entitles the official to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is a question of law.

Rogers v. Paul

232 F. Supp. 833 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 19, 1964

The revised plan clearly outlines the changes necessary to put such a classification in effect, and it is necessary to create new junior high school attendance areas in order to take full advantage of the new system and as … They must consider the personal rights of all qualified persons to be admitted to the free public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis.

Norcross v. Sneed

573 F. Supp. 533 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 21, 1983

The Fifth Circuit said in this regard: (1) [T]he disabled claimant may establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by proving that: (a) except for his physical handicap, he is qualified for the position; (b) he … To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.