Case law

Chambers v. Stern

338 Ark. 332 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 8, 1999

I agree with the majority court that judicial immunity can be extended to a qualified therapist and that the issue of judicial immunity is an issue of law. … Stern absolute immunity. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Benton School District; Lori Bacon, in Her Individual and Official Capacity; And Lita Gattis, in Her Individual and Official Capacity v. Brandi Greer

2026 Ark. 53 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 12, 2026

Gattis on qualified-immunity grounds. The court also reaffirmed its ruling that both are immune from liability on the ACRA individual-capacity claims except to the extent of any applicable insurance coverage. … Gattis on qualified-immunity grounds.17 The court also reaffirmed its ruling that both are immune from liability on the ACRA individual- capacity claims except to the extent of any applicable insurance coverage.

Malik Muntaqim, Adc No. 088633 v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction

2024 Ark. App. 455 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 25, 2024

Sovereign and Qualified Immunity Sovereign immunity for the State of Arkansas arises from an express declaration in article 5, section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution. Muntaqim, 2022 Ark. … Under this analysis, a state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff has alleged facts that demonstrate the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Gentry v. Robinson

361 S.W.3d 788 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 17, 2009

^Clearly, Robinson’s “proof’ fell far short of meeting this standard. … At issue in Pace was a question of qualified immunity for a municipal police officer in his individual capacity, while the present case presents a question of statutory immunity for a county official acting in his official

Guidry v. Harp's Food Stores, Inc.

66 Ark. App. 93 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 24, 1999

The qualified-immunity defense protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Id. The issue for immunity purposes is not probable cause in fact, but arguable probable cause. Id. … Appellant’s state law claims would not be subject to the same analysis used by the federal court in determining Jones’s entidement to qualified immunity.

J. David John v. Martin T. Faitak, ph.D.

594 S.W.3d 871 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 12, 2020

But we do have jurisdiction to decide whether, assuming that all of the facts alleged by Kahle are true, Malone is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.”). … Faitak’s alleged conspiracy to broker a settlement, I must note that any such attempt was clearly unsuccessful. Moreover, the circuit court’s order stated that the monthly mediation sessions with Dr.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 31, 1988

A right, power, franchise or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of law. … Such an intent could easily have been clearly expressed.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 14, 2004

You do not indicate in your question whether the students' injuries may have resulted from the negligence of a school district official or employee, in which case under Arkansas law the qualified immunity set forth at A.C.A … Code Ann. 6-17-1113 to authorize and direct ADE to establish a self-insurance fund or procure insurance policies to insure school district employees against acts or omissions from which they have not traditionally been immune

Short v. Westark Community College

347 Ark. 497 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 31, 2002

, and to propose the creation of the district to the qualified voters in the proposed district, who then may vote to create the district. … Clearly, here the State is not the moving party seeking specific relief. Therefore, unless the legislature has waived immunity, both the constitutional and statutory guarantees of immunity stand.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 8, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit 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. Fegans v.

Hein v. Arkansas State University

972 F. Supp. 1175 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 30, 1997

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity in the discharge of discretionary duties when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Rather, the question addressed is narrowly confined to issues of qualified immunity and whether any such rights of the plaintiff were “clearly established” at the time of the University’s actions. In Vlandis v.

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.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 18, 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.

Hale v. State

336 Ark. 345 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 11, 1999

that their evidence is not tainted by establishing that they had an independent, legitimate source for the disputed evidence. … For these reasons, we cannot say that the trial court’s finding that the state proceeding was independent from the federally immunized testimony, and the evidence derived therefrom, is clearly erroneous.

JOHN CHISM BAIL BONDS, INC. v. Pennington

656 F. Supp. 2d 929 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 31, 2009

are entitled to qualified immunity. … ; that they are not protected by sovereign immunity because they acted with malice; and that they are not protected by qualified immunity because it was deprived of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Arkansas Highway Police, a Division of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department v. Raunona Mays

2026 Ark. 57 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 9, 2026

In her complaint, Mays alleges specific facts that establish a prima facie case of discriminatory employment. … Instead, it establishes a selective regime of amenability: the State may be sued for some state claims, but not other similar federal claims.

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.

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

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

ACW, INC. v. Weiss

329 Ark. 302 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 30, 1997

XVI, § 13, and asked for refunds, injunctive relief, and the establishment of a common fund. … To the contrary, the public policy of our state clearly favors sustaining public schools and defraying necessary expenses of government.