Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 23, 1994

immunity in federal court. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (stating that the test of qualified immunity for individual officers turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 8, 2004

Martin, 280 Ark. 345 , 658 S.W.2d 374 (1983) (holding that qualified immunity will not apply if the challenged conduct violates clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known). … However, because negligence is a state, not a federal, claim, your question does not raise any issue of qualified immunity.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 13, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 3, 2005

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 17, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 2, 2002

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is" qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 25, 2002

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from trial if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 13, 2000

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from trial if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 10, 2002

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 7, 1993

The court framed the qualified immunity issue as being "whether minor school children suspected of being victims of child abuse had, [at the relevant time] a clearly established right to be free from questioning and visual … The court found no such clearly established right, and found, therefore that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and were therefore not liable.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 10, 2001

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 14, 2008

I believe an individual thus certified by the Division of Health and Human Services as an EMT would clearly qualify as a "health care professional" for purposes of applying the Good Samaritan Act. … Any first responder who qualifies as a "health care professional" would consequently enjoy qualified immunity for providing emergency care, but only if he did not receive compensation either for his time or expenses, in consideration

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 12, 2002

However, district employees enjoy a qualified immunity from such liability unless their conduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 13, 2006

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Sep 13, 2002

The defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the beginning of discovery if the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 19, 2001

The city might further face liability under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , for the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Nov 17, 2003

The defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the beginning of discovery if the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 17, 2001

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Jan 31, 2000

E.D. 1998), proves helpful, as the court stated: Two kinds of immunity exists for government officials absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability unless the official violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Sep 18, 2001

Second is qualified immunity, which protects an official from liability unless the official clearly violates an established statutory or constitutional right. The court in Lucas v. Parish of Jefferson , 999 F. … Under this rationale, a person, such as a prosecutor, could have absolute immunity for some of his conduct but only qualified immunity for other of his job-related activities.