Case law

Morrow v. City of Jacksonville, Ark.

941 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 16, 1996

Of course, the qualified immunity issue is moot if the Court's holding in Part II-B is correct, that is, that the plaintiff does not qualify to bring an ADA claim. … However, if the Court is wrong and she is so qualified, then defendants Hibbs and Tate enjoy qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim predicated on an ADA violation.

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

McCrory v. Johnson

296 Ark. 231 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 18, 1988

However, a clerk may have either absolute or qualified immunity for acts done in his or her official capacity. … only if he can show that his actions did not contravene clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in his position should have known.”

Asa Hutchinson, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Arkansas v. Randall Thomas McArty

600 S.W.3d 549 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 2020

Here, McArty’s complaint lacked sufficient facts to establish how the only remaining defendant, Hutchinson in his official capacity, violated McArty’s constitutional rights by signing the FSMA into law. … See Martin, 2018 Ark. 283, at 8, 556 S.W.3d at 515 (“Because appellee has asserted that Act 633 violates qualified voters’ constitutional right to vote and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, not money damages, this

Weiss v. Geisbauer

363 Ark. 508 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 13, 2005

Land annexed to Fort Smith after July 1, 2001 does not qualify to receive the border city exemption. … The act here is clearly local and special legislation and in violation of Amendment No. 14 to the Arkansas Constitution.

Cousins v. Dennis

298 Ark. 310 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 27, 1989

This appeal involves a tort case which requires this court’s interpretation of several statutes that bear on (1) whether the appellees are immune from liability under the concept of governmental immunity and (2) whether the … A tractor clearly falls within the definition of an implement of husbandry, and, as such, is not required to be registered under Arkansas law.

Herndon v. Johnson

970 F. Supp. 703 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 17, 1997

Angelone, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 772 , 133 L.Ed.2d 724 (1996) (citing issues of statutory construction and state sovereignty to support conclusion that application of Acts not “clearly established” for purpose of qualified immunity … For example, in finding that the statute did not “clearly establish” that the ADA covers state prisons, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals pointed to the “broad, non-specific language” contained in the ADA.

Michael Talley; Jonesboro Police Department; And City of Jonesboro, Arkansas v. Carolyn Johnson, Michael Johnson, and Hailey Johnson (Now Boyd)

2026 Ark. App. 177 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 11, 2026

Talley argues further that the trial court erred in denying him qualified immunity. … . § 21-9-301 and again asserted that they were entitled to tort immunity for any damages in excess of the statutory limit established by Ark. Code Ann. § 21-9-303.

Assaad-Faltas v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

708 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 1, 1989

Thus, even if the allegations of the complaint are taken as true, defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity from damages. … , sovereign immunity under the Arkansas Constitution and law, and qualified “good faith” immunity. (3) All defamation claims and breach of privacy claims are dismissed as true statements or privileged comments. (4) Claims

Martin v. Smith

560 S.W.3d 787 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 26, 2018

The appointment of the person in charge is clearly an integral part of the CRO-release process. Here, it is clear that Dr. … Yet performing a traditional judicial function is *793 the polestar in determining whether someone qualifies for judicial immunity. E.g. , Cleavinger v.

Davie v. Office of Child Support Enforcement

349 Ark. 187 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2002

No premiums, deposits, or other payment have been paid to qualify for them. … SSI recipients, however, either never paid this “premium” or never paid enough into the system to qualify for SSD.

Ridenhour v. State

305 Ark. 90 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 25, 1991

That act provides that action taken by non-qualified officers “shall not be held invalid.” The act expressly applies to pending cases. … The Collins case is significant because it clearly limits the types of situations which will constitute violations of the Ex Post Facto Clause. In Collins, the defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse.

Rebsamen Motor Co. v. Phillips

226 Ark. 146 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 2, 1956

contract or franchise in effect with a manufacturer or distributor of the new or unused motor vehicle or vehicles proposed to be dealt in and who maintains adequate space in the building or structure wherein his, its or their established … fix his salary, etc.” ... is clearly an attempt by the Legislature to delegate this power to the commission.

Keith Gibson, Tom Schueck, Robert S. Moore, Jr., Alec Farmer, and Philip Taldo, Members of the Arkansas State Highway Commission Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas Department of Transportation Dennis Milligan, Treasurer of the State of Arkansas Andrea Lea, Auditor of the State of Arkansas Larry W. Walther, Director, Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration And Asa Hutchinson, Governor of the State of Arkansas v. Shelly Buonauito, Mary Weeks, Verlon Abrams, and Sarah B. Thompson

2022 Ark. 206 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 1, 2022

This court clearly stated that, by authorizing attorneys’ fees, it was not “endorsing a new exception to the American Rule.” Lake View, 340 Ark. at 497, 10 S.W.3d at 902. … Thus, it qualifies who may file suit and does not limit which public entities can be sued. Ark. Const. art. 16, § 13. Thus, it qualifies who may file suit; it does not limit which public entities can be sued.

Minor v. Failla

329 Ark. 274 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 30, 1997

Failla and Stephens answered that any statements made by them were true and that they were protected by a qualified immunity due to their official capacities. … Rather, the thrust of his brief concerns the referral of the criminal matter to SherifFPhiUips and Minor’s contention that there was no qualified immunity.

Lacey v. Bekaert Steel Wire Corp.

619 F. Supp. 1234 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 2, 1985

The policy involved in this case was “carried” by Bekaert, not Van Buren, and Bekaert does not qualify as an “association of any kind or character, not subject to suit for tort.” … Lee Creek Road was established as a county road by order of the Crawford County Court in May, 1968.

Finch v. Carroll Cnty. Ark.

445 S.W.3d 535 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 22, 2014

Appellees answered the amended complaint and pled defenses of qualified immunity, punitive-damages immunity, sovereign immunity, justification, mootness, set-off, comparative fault, failure to mitigate, assumption of risk … Once a moving party establishes a prima facie entitlement to the summary judgment by affidavits, depositions, or other supporting documents, the opposing party must meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of

Keith Gibson, Tom Schueck, Robert S. Moore, Jr., Alec Farmer, and Philip Taldo, Members of the Arkansas State Highway Commission Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas Department of Transportation Dennis Milligan, Treasurer of the State of Arkansas Andrea Lea, Auditor of the State of Arkansas Larry W. Walther, Director, Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration And Asa Hutchinson, Governor of the State of Arkansas v. Shelly Buonauito, Mary Weeks, Verlon Abrams, and Sarah B. Thompson

2022 Ark. 206 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 1, 2022

This court clearly stated that, by authorizing attorneys’ fees, it was not “endorsing a new exception to the American Rule.” Lake View, 340 Ark. at 497, 10 S.W.3d at 902. … Thus, it qualifies who may file suit and does not limit which public entities can be sued. Ark. Const. art. 16, § 13. Thus, it qualifies who may file suit; it does not limit which public entities can be sued.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 14, 1988

It should be noted, for instance, that provision is made under A.C.A. 14-284-208 (a) for the qualified voters of the district proposed thereunder to vote on the establishment of the district and the levy of assessed benefits … Authority to establish subordinate service districts is found in A.C.A. 14-14-708 — 711.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · May 18, 2007

Const. art. 5 , § 22 , or whether you also intend to dispense with the statutorily mandated limited and qualified immunity enjoyed by state employees. … I will further note that qualified immunity is a matter of preemptive federal law, meaning that a reviewing court might well conclude that such immunity cannot be withheld by state constitutional amendment.