Case law

Crum

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 18, 2026

The qualified immunity inquiry consists of two questions: “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown . . . establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly … established” prong of qualified-immunity analysis.

Morgan v. Wilson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 16, 2022

The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to ask whether the law was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Finding the law not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, Officer Phaypanya is entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Hamilton v. Earl

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 28, 2024

“In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Arnold v. … Courts may choose to analyze the clearly established prong of qualified immunity prior to determining if a plaintiff established a claim for violation of their constitutional rights. See Pearson v.

Scamardo v. Scott County, Ark.

12 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 8, 1998

Legislative Immunity. … The doctrine of legislative immunity clearly protects legislators from individual liability under § 1983 for carrying out then-legislative functions, but whether the doc-- *943 trine is available to protect the County itself

Ho

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 18, 2026

Defendants then argue that even if Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for excessive force, Trooper Arnold would still be entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that his actions … Qualified immunity entitles a public official to immunity from suit under § 1983 unless their actions: 1) violated constitutional or statutory rights; and 2) those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged

Williams v. Brown

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 1, 2022

With respect to qualified immunity, “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Gulick is entitled to qualified immunity “unless [Williams] has plausibly stated both (i) a claim for violation of his [constitutional rights]; and (ii) that he right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Cobb v. Stringer

660 F. Supp. 1133 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 3, 1987

There are two essential elements of a 1983 action which have been clearly established by the United States Supreme Court. … 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.

Frye v. Watson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 15, 2025

“In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Ching ex rel. Jordan v. … They argue that it is clearly established that “probable cause is required for an arrest.” ECF No. 44, p. 10. However, the Fryes have not shown that the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established.

McCutcheon v. Parker

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 11, 2025

OBJECTION THREE: ENTITLEMENT TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants’ next objection is to the denial of qualified immunity. … McCutcheon’s clearly established constitutional rights. First, it is undisputed that Mr.

Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. Beebe

418 F. Supp. 2d 1082 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 6, 2006

The state action immunity doctrine arose out of the case of Parker v. … Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 , 107 S.Ct. 720 , 93 L.Ed.2d 667 (1987), the Court noted that it had, over time, established a two-part test for determining state action immunity under Parker : the challenged restraint must be “clearly

Harris v. Payne

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 29, 2022

to qualified immunity. … Because the Court finds that the right is not clearly established, it must find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hight v. Williams

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 27, 2024

Qualified Immunity In his summary judgment motion, Defendant Williams argues that he is entitled to summary judgment based on the application of qualified immunity … “In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Ching ex rel. Jordan v.

Lee v. Escobar

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 9, 2022

and his individual capacity claims were barred by qualified immunity. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must dismiss a complaint against a government official in his [or her] individual capacity that fails to state a claim for violation of clearly established statutory or

Human Rights Defense Center v. Union County, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 17, 2018

However, the Simpson Court did not look at the issue of qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, finding that “no clearly established law regarding a ‘postcard only’ mail policy existed at the time [the defendants] instituted the Policy

Waukesha Building Corporation v. Jameson

246 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 11, 1965

The third-party defendant Erie in its brief contends as a fundamental proposition that the burden is upon 'O’Brien to establish the jurisdictional facts. … The Hiersche case is clearly distinguishable by virtue of the foreign cor *189 poration’s salesman actively soliciting orders in Oregon.

Loge v. United States

494 F. Supp. 883 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 28, 1980

The second clause of this section reserves immunity for the government for the exercise or omission of discretionary functions regardless of due care. … The members of a panel shall be qualified experts, appointed by the Commissioner, and shall include persons from lists submitted by organizations representing professional, consumer, and industry interests.

Herren v. Farm Security Administration, Department of Agriculture

60 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 12, 1945

The .action comes within the waiver of governmental immunity under the terms of the Tucker Act. … Public policy forbids the suit unless consent is given, as clearly as public policy makes jurisdiction exclusive by declaration of the legislative body.”

Rasheed v. Texarkana, Arkansas, City of

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 19, 2018

Even assuming Plaintiff has standing to bring this claim, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are immune from civil rights claims brought under § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonably objective party would have known.” Harlow v.

International Tobacco Partners, Ltd. v. Beebe

420 F. Supp. 2d 989 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 6, 2006

The state action immunity doctrine arose out of the case of Parker v. … Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 , 107 S.Ct. 720 , 93 L.Ed.2d 667 (1987), the Court noted that it had, over time, established a two-part test for determining state action immunity under Parker : the challenged restraint must be “clearly

Bourgeois v. Vanderbilt

639 F. Supp. 2d 958 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 28, 2009

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD The standard of review for summary judgment is well established. … Damages can be recovered if the plaintiff proves that the vendor “knowingly sold alcoholic beverages to a person who was clearly intoxicated.” Ark. Code Ann. § 3-3-209 . As set forth in Lane v.