Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
835 results
0.60s
District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 19, 2019
Qualified Immunity on the Personal Capacity Claims Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Davidson’s claims against them in their individual capacities. … “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Krout v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown747 F. Supp. 518 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 6, 1990
On review, the Supreme Court held that the Trial Lawyers’ conduct was not clearly outside the scope of the Sherman Act nor immunized by the First Amendment. … The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Cited 8 timesPublished843 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 21, 1994
The school argued for application of the established rule of law that if two statutes of limitations apply to the same cause of action the longest limitations should be applied. … The court stated: As it relates to the facts in the present case, § 16-56-112(a) clearly establishes a maximum five year period within which an injured party can bring suit against a person who deficiently constructs or repairs
Cited 7 timesPublishedWise Ex Rel. Wise v. Pea Ridge School District No. 109
675 F. Supp. 1524 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 23, 1987
Clearly, the punishment administered to Daniel Wise does not amount to a violation of substantive due process. … Because of the court’s ruling above it is unnecessary to examine in depth defend *1532 ants’ arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 6 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Feb 5, 2018
Karas also contends he is entitled to qualified immunity. … was clearly established at the time of the violation.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 14, 2023
Further, insofar as Plaintiff sues the County Defendants in their individual capacities, the County Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The County Defendants then assert that they “are entitled to qualified immunity,” which appears to encompass all claims in which they are named in their individual capacities (including Claim 4).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 8, 2025
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815–819, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736–2739, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (allegations of malice are insufficient to overcome qualified immunity). … To establish a Bivens claim against an official in his individual capacity, the plaintiff “must ferret out the officials directly responsible for the alleged constitutional violation.” Laswell v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown152 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 5, 2000
Should the court construe the case to include claims against them in their individual capacity, defendants request the right to plead additional affirmative defenses such as qualified immunity. … Personal capacity claims, on the other hand, are those which allege personal liability for individual actions by officials in the course of their duties; these claims do not require proof of any policy and qualified immunity
Cited 4 timesPublishedCarr v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company
384 F. Supp. 821 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 19, 1974
the agent, employee and servant in charge after a superficial examination of the decedent; that said agent, employee and servant refused to call a physician or make any effort to have plaintiff’s decedent examined by a qualified … Such evidence can be established either by direct or circumstantial evidence but the appellee cannot rely upon inferences based on conjecture or speculation in order to establish proof of negligence.” In Henry H.
Cited 11 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 2, 2020
immunity; and 3) there is no unconstitutional policy implemented by Miller County that violated Plaintiff rights. … immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownArkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. v. United States
350 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 7, 1972
[Mercury], Red Line Transfer & Storage Co., Inc., and Mercury Freight Lines, Inc., introduced affidavits duly executed by qualified officers. … The plaintiffs have established that they are likely to prevail on the merits. In United Parcel Service v.
Cited 2 timesPublished635 F. Supp. 851 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 10, 1986
They are specifically charged by statute with the duty to register the issue or qualify it for exemption. … Any general manager given express powers such as White is clearly a person made liable under the blue sky laws.
Reversed by Arthur Young & Co. v. Reves, 856 F.2d 52 (1988)Cited 18 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 24, 2019
immunity may be raised as a defense. … Clearly, “[vjerbal threats do not constitute a constitutional violation.” Martin, 780 F.2d at 1339.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 11, 2019
Qualified Immunity To the extent individual capacity claims are asserted, Defendants correctly contend that they would be entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., 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). -F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 7, 2022
The final method to establish the City of Prairie Grove’s liability is by establishing the failure to train or supervise the offending actors who caused the deprivation. Parrish v. … First, as to the false arrest claim, “[a] warrantless arrest is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if it is supported by probable cause, and an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if there is at least arguable
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 8, 2019
In the instant case, ACIC is not a natural person, and the Court can find no authority establishing that an Arkansas state agency is a suable entity under Section 1983. … However, the Court finds that ACIC’s website clearly shows that ACIC is an Arkansas state agency and therefore not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 30, 2020
Adams, Griffie, or Burns; that the Defendants did not fail to protect the Plaintiff; and that, alternatively, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Krout v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownLaborers' International Union of North America v. Kunco, Inc.
344 F. Supp. 626 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 3, 1972
establishment of a stable wage structure for clearly covered employee-drivers. … Clearly, the mileage tax-li *629 cense tag agreement comes within that class.” In the case of Thomas v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 1, 2019
; and, (3) even if a constitutional violation has been shown, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Because there were no violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, it is not necessary to address the issue of qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 14, 2017
immunity. … Having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Krout v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna