Case law

Sylvester v. Fogley

383 F. Supp. 2d 1135 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 28, 2005

C) Defendants’ Claim of Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Having found no constitutional rights violation, the Court need not reach the issue *1144 of qualified immunity. … We note, however, in the event that a violation had occurred, the Court would have found Defendants to be entitled to qualified immunity. The qualified immunity analysis consists of a two-part inquiry.

Hogan v. City of El Dorado

455 F. Supp. 2d 876 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 29, 2006

Under qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Kuha v. … If so, the next question is whether or not the right asserted was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Wanbaugh v. Fields

508 F. Supp. 2d 723 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 23, 2007

“Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials who can prove that their conduct did ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” … We find defendants not entitled to qualified immunity.

Holt Bonding Co., Inc. v. Nichols

988 F. Supp. 1232 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 18, 1997

“[P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Grantham v. … Qualified immunity shields Nichols from' liability unless he violated HBCI’s clearly established rights and reasonably should have known he was doing so.

McCarthy v. Boozman

212 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 25, 2002

The religious exemption provided in Section 6-18-702(d)(2) clearly runs afoul of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the … The language of the statute clearly indicates that the legislature’s dominant purpose was to establish a comprehensive immunization program for school children, and the statute is complete and capable of execution without

Smith v. Eggbrecht

414 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 23, 2005

Individual-Capacity Claims/Qualified Immunity — Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs claims against him in his individual capacity. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Broussard v. Waldron School District

866 F. Supp. 2d 1042 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 23, 2011

To determine whether the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must ask (1) whether the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to John Doe, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory … right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, such that a reasonable official would have known that his actions were unlawful.

Strickland v. Inlow

348 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 29, 1972

In Arkansas the immunity is a qualified one by decision law and an absolute immunity by statute. In Douglass v. … This case involves the qualified immunity for school authorities acting within the scope of their authority and in the performance of their official duties.

Bland v. Lyle

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 1, 2020

Ann., 800 F.3d 985 (8th Cir. 2015) (dismissing failure to train claim after granting qualified immunity on excessive force claim); see also Clark v. Ware, 873 F.Supp.2d 1117, 1122 (E.D. … (Doc. 22-2, p. 3) (emphasis added), this is clearly at odds with the undisputed facts. The causation question is free from doubt.

Lewis v. Harrison School District No. 1

621 F. Supp. 1480 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 1, 1985

Therefore, under Harlow , the individual defendants are immune unless their actions violated clearly established law. … Lewis’ employment did not violate clearly-established constitutional law as it existed in mid-1981. The individual defendants, therefore, are immune from liability in either event.

Thompson v. Baker

133 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 19, 1955

Apparently this is the first case in which the question of the immunity of sheriffs or constables has been raised in a case based on the Civil Rights Act, but the above cited decisions clearly chart the course for the Court … The Court can perceive of no reason why the long-established immunity of a constable serving a writ should be in any degree inferior to the immunity of quasi-judicial officers, wardens, or prothonotaries, and the Court is

Sexton v. Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct

725 F. Supp. 1051 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 22, 1989

The court held that the denial of qualified immunity was immediately appealable, because the right to such immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and, like an absolute immunity, it is … Accordingly, the court finds that defendant’s qualified immunity defense is wholly without merit. C.

American Humanist Ass'n v. Baxter County

143 F. Supp. 3d 816 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 12, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … established to overcome qualified immunity.

Stephenson v. United States

961 F. Supp. 221 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 9, 1996

Ridgell Ridgell argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects her from the claims asserted against her in the complaint. … “[G]ovemment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages [and are entitled to qualified immunity] insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Lacey v. Bekaert Steel Wire Corp.

619 F. Supp. 1234 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 2, 1985

The policy involved in this case was “carried” by Bekaert, not Van Buren, and Bekaert does not qualify as an “association of any kind or character, not subject to suit for tort.” … Lee Creek Road was established as a county road by order of the Crawford County Court in May, 1968.

Pratt v. Mitcham

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

Having found no constitutional claim exists, Captain Mitcham is also entitled to qualified immunity on the individual capacity claim against him, Krout v. … Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557, 564 (8th Cir. 2009) (unless the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity), and the official capacity claim against him, Ivey v.

Byar v. Lee

336 F. Supp. 2d 896 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 9, 2004

Defendant next argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs claims. … The Court, therefore, concludes that defendant is not entitled to the protection of the defense of qualified immunity in this matter. 7.

Wilmoth v. Murphy

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

Qualified Immunity Having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation as to all Defendants except Deputy Murphy, the remaining Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Additionally, Deputy Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity as to the August 11, 2016, incident.

Parsons v. Northwest Arkansas Community College

846 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 14, 1993

The term community college is defined as an educational institution established or to be established by one (1) or more counties or cities of the state offering a comprehensive program designed to serve the post-secondary … Clearly a termination in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights can form the basis of both a federal claim and a state wrongful discharge claim.

State v. Central Surety & Insurance

102 F. Supp. 444 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 31, 1952

If done in the course of effecting an arrest, under circumstances clearly showing that no such force was necessary, or if done to force a confession, or if done to administer punishment for a supposed violation of the law … Little was not a duly authorized and qualified deputy sheriff or other state officer, although he apparently held himself out to be such.