Case law

Hayes v. Faulkner County, Ark.

285 F. Supp. 2d 1132 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 22, 2003

Hayes has established that Major Kelley violated his constitutional rights, 51 Major Kelley contends that he is protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official for conduct that does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 52 Thus, an official is not immune

Cherokee Nation Businesses, LLC Legends Resort and Casino, LLC And the Arkansas Racing Commission v. Gulfside Casino Partnership And Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

2023 Ark. 153 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 26, 2023

. § 23-117-101 (Repl. 2015), and established an application period that ran from May 1 through May 30, 2019. … Gulfside submitted a letter notifying the ARC of its challenge to Legends’ status as a qualified applicant because it had “no gaming experience.”

Perkins v. Cross

562 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 29, 1983

It fails to raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, which protects police officers who make an arrest in good faith and for probable cause. … The law is clear that the qualified immunity defense must be affirmatively pled, which was not done in this case. Gomez v.

Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee

359 Ark. 49 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 30, 2004

Clearly, our court endowed the masters with broad authority to order all parties and their counsel to file responses and to be present at oral arguments and hearings when testimony and other evidence would be heard. … refused to sign an agreed order; this court stated it was hard pressed to reconcile public notices to class members supporting fees. [2] Lake View had failed to prove the required class action or a common fund in order to qualify

Jones v. Hobbs

864 F. Supp. 2d 808 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 5, 2012

Qualified Immunity As the magistrate explained, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right which was “clearly established” at the time. … diet suiting his religious beliefs was not a clearly established right.

In re Ruby G. Owen Trust

2012 Ark. App. 381 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 13, 2012

We have stated repeatedly that we would not reverse a finding by a trial court in an equity case unless it was clearly erroneous. Id. … The trial court denied the modification, finding, among other things, that it would only permit the family to immunize itself financially from reimbursing the state for the beneficiary’s medical care. Id.

DuPree v. Alma School District No. 30

279 Ark. 340 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 31, 1983

We will not overturn the decision below unless we find it clearly erroneous. (ARCP 52). … Privileges and immunities — Equality. — The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belpng to all citizens. § 1.

Morton v. City of Little Rock

728 F. Supp. 543 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 26, 1989

Furthermore, even under qualified immunity standards, the defense of qualified immunity turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in the light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” … It was clearly a violation of law for him to refuse to honor the subpoena, and it was equally clear that judicial officials are entitled to examine the expunged records.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 17, 2006

nor shall it have the benefit of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … In my opinion, this arrangement is clearly not a simple purchase agreement but rather a joint undertaking of the sort that qualifies as an interlocal agreement requiring my approval pursuant to A.C.A. § 25-20-104 (f).

Johnson v. Arkansas Steel Erectors

2009 Ark. App. 755 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 11, 2009

, we stated that Sierra was a “persona” of Gardner and therefore also immune. … “Personas” cannot be employed independently in order to establish immunity from third-party actions. Rather, the existence of a “persona” relationship must be analyzed in the context of an employment relationship.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Mar 6, 2006

nor shall it have the benefit of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … In my opinion, this arrangement is clearly not a simple purchase agreement but rather a joint undertaking of the sort that qualifies as an interlocal agreement requiring my approval pursuant to A.C.A. § 25-20-104 (f).

Young v. Blytheville School District

2013 Ark. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 30, 2013

This immunity is qualified; section 21-9-301 does not provide immunity for the intentional torts of school districts and their employees, only their negligent acts. Deitsch v. … Generally, an isolated incident is insufficient to establish such a policy or custom. Repking, supra.

Green v. City of North Little Rock

2012 Ark. App. 21 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 4, 2012

Green further asserted that the City was not entitled to any kind of qualified immunity. … A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a | ^constitutional violation, has demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established, and has raised a

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 22, 2008

I should note, however, that the pre-2007 Good Samaritan Act clearly extended beyond the scope of common law the scope of protection to "a physician or surgeon who in good faith and without compensation rendered voluntary … Although subsection (a) might be read as subjecting a treating individual to liability simply if he acts unreasonably in rendering care, subsection (c) qualifies this conclusion by suggesting that the immunity will apply

Harvey v. Williams

680 F. Supp. 318 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 10, 1988

In their motion for summary judgment the defendants raise defenses based on the *320 Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if he violated no clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should have known. Harlow v.

Davis v. Fulton County, Ark.

884 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 28, 1995

s] were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.”); see also Pinder v. … Rather, since the legal basis for the potential genesis of this “right of protection” was well-established at the time plaintiffs § 1983 cause of action accrued, this alone is sufficient to defeat any claim of qualified immunity

St. Bernard's Community Hospital Corporation D/B/A Crossridge Community Hospital v. Terry Cheney, in His Capacity as Special Administrator of the Estate of Sandra Cheney, Deceased; Charles King Bibby, M.D.; Wynne Medical Clinic, P.A.; James Donald Cathey, M.D.; Zachary Lloyd Stevenson, M.D.; And Elizabeth A. Ramsey, R.N.

625 S.W.3d 398 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 12, 2021

CrossRidge argues on appeal that it established entitlement to summary judgment on the basis of charitable immunity. … Clearly, summary judgment is even less appropriate when there are disputed issues of material fact.

Stephenson v. United States

961 F. Supp. 221 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 9, 1996

Ridgell Ridgell argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects her from the claims asserted against her in the complaint. … “[G]ovemment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages [and are entitled to qualified immunity] insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 7, 2008

In addition, following Arkansas Supreme Court precedent, this office will not address the constitutionality of proposed measures in the context of a ballot title review unless the measure is "clearly contrary to law." … ALIEN SHALL BE VERIFIED THROUGH THE SYSTEMATIC ALIEN VERIFICATION FOR ENTITLEMENTS PROGRAM OPERATED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ESTABLISHING A PRESUMPTION OF ELIGIBLITY BASED UPON SUCH AFFIDAVIT

Smith v. Cleburne County Hospital

667 F. Supp. 644 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 10, 1987

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: Defendants have argued, in their briefs, that this Court did not address the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, asserted by defendants, in its Opinion and Order of February 14, 1985. … On the other hand, plaintiff argues that while the Court did not make a specific finding that defendants had forfeited their qualified immunity, it is clear that such a finding was “expressly implicit in its findings that