Case law

Smith v. BRT

363 Ark. 126 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 30, 2005

Under that analysis, a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established, … qualified immunity under Ark.

Virden v. Roper

302 Ark. 125 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 1990

The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established. Robinson v. Beaumont, supra; Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985); and see Cohen v. … They maintain in the alternative if a violation of a constitutional right occurred, it is not a “clearly established” right and, hence, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity under Mitchell, supra.

City of Highfill, Arkansas; Jeffery Brenaman, in His Official and Individual Capacities; And Mayor Michelle Rieff, in Her Official and Individual Capacities v. Shana Scantlin and Tammy Ridenhour

2025 Ark. App. 242 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 23, 2025

is clearly established, and (3) raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … Under our qualified-immunity analysis, however, we agree that even if Scantlin and Ridenhour have asserted a violation of a clearly established right under the Act, they have failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to

Alexander Sullivan, in His Individual and Official Capacities; City of Little Rock; And Keith Humphrey, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police, City of Little Rock Police Department v. Kenneth Richardson

2026 Ark. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 4, 2026

A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and raised … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Brodie Faughn and Billy Colvin v. Alfred Kennedy and Wayne Kennedy

2019 Ark. App. 570 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Dec 4, 2019

Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability in an excessive-force case unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … The second step of the qualified-immunity inquiry—whether the constitutional or statutory right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct— requires the victim to point to a previously decided

Hubbard v. Stout

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 23, 2018

Defendants are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Jones v. … Having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Krout v.

Robinson v. Langdon

333 Ark. 662 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 25, 1998

Fitzgerald, the [government official] will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Shuffield had “fair warning” that he was violating a clearly established right in determining that the allegation of abuse was “founded.”

Walker v. Watson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 6, 2022

Qualified Immunity The Defendants alternatively argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s claims. … The Court, having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation finds that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to each of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims.

Walker v. Ryals

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 28, 2023

Because the above failure to protect law was clearly established prior to the May 2022 fight, I conclude Officer Huett and Corporal Barnat are not entitled to qualified immunity on this failure to protect claim. … And, because that law was clearly established before May 2022, I conclude Defendant Barnat is not entitled to qualified immunity on this excessive force claim. V.

Jetta Elliott v. Dusty Morgan, in His Official Capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Boone County

603 S.W.3d 570 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 13, 2020

Toward this end, police officers have qualified immunity from liability in their individual capacity unless they violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would know. Harlow v. … A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established

Edward Monk v. Alvernon Rogers

2021 Ark. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2021

from damages under section 1983 7 unless they transgress “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Accordingly, Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged, construed in a light most favorable to Monk, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly

Martin v. Hallum

2010 Ark. App. 193 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 24, 2010

Toward this end, police officers have qualified immunity from liability in their individual capacity unless they violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would know. Harlow v. … A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raised a genuine

Martin v. Haas

556 S.W.3d 509 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 11, 2018

That case is clearly not on point. … elections in this State are legally qualified to vote in such elections" modifies the requirement of "establish[ing] a system of permanent personal registration."

Henson v. Foster

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

Qualified immunity “shields [a] government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v. … of whether the detainees rights were clearly established). 2.

Harris v. Parrish

552 S.W.3d 475 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2018

right is clearly established, and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official should have known that the conduct violated such established rights. … We hold that Parrish's constitutional rights were clearly established prior to Harris's actions in question. In Shannon v.

Morgan v. Wilson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 5, 2022

Judicial Immunity “Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges for liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial … entitled to qualified immunity).

Christopher H. Harris v. Asa Hutchinson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Arkansas; And Patrick Fisk, Individually and in His Official Capacity

591 S.W.3d 778 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 9, 2020

The General Assembly clearly intended to subject the State to liability under the AWBA. Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-602(5); Smith v. … , the legislature has established the Arkansas State Claims Commission so that claims against the State may be addressed while preserving the State’s sovereign immunity.

Newton v. Etoch

332 Ark. 325 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 19, 1998

Clearly, the State has not been named as a party, but our inquiry does not stop there. We established the test for whether a suit is one brought against the State in Page v. … Supreme Court has distinguished qualified immunity and absolute immunity by stating that qualified immunity depends on the circumstances and the prosecutor’s motives, as established by the evidence. Imbler v.

Covert v. Kelley

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 27, 2023

were entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established). … The Eighth Circuit has described the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity as follows: Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit

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.