Case law

Carlin v. Rogers District Court (In Re Carlin)

274 B.R. 821 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 8, 2002

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). 1 The burden is on the moving party to establish the absence of a material fact and identify portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits that … as a matter of law because its action qualifies as an exception under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (b)(1), which specifically excepts the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor from operation

McILLWAIN v. Weaver

686 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 22, 2010

Even if Deputy Traw’s participation violated Plaintiffs right to privacy, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Separate Defendants Weaver, Woods, and Roberts may be entitled to qualified immunity, but there are so many facts in dispute at this point that it is not possible to rule on this issue.

Ross v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 4, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The Court is not aware of clearly established precedent finding a violation of protected rights under these circumstances. Consequently, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this point.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 11, 2002

To qualify for designation, such agent shall reside or maintain a place of business within the limits of Pulaski County, Arkansas." … In my opinion, an ordinance requiring an out-of-state property owner to designate a county resident as his agent for service of process is clearly permissible under this standard.

Bailey

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 14, 2026

Officers are typically immune from suit unless they violate a plaintiff’s clearly established rights. See Kelsay v. Ernst, 933 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2019). … As provided above, officers are immune from suit unless they violate a clearly established right, and there is no established authority for the proposition that an officer automatically seizes a person by taking possession

Kimbrell v. McCleskey

424 S.W.3d 844 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 29, 2012

They aver that sovereign immunity has no bearing on the issue. … Clearly, the URT is not a county tax, but further absent is any suggestion whatsoever that it is a state tax.

Carfagno v. Harris

470 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 10, 1979

They have a common interest with the unnamed members of the class and they are prosecuting this interest through qualified counsel. … Thus, I find that the requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied and that this action qualifies as a class action. I find the questions of mootness, judicial immunity, exhaustion, and abstention to be meritless.

Chenault v. Williams

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 29, 2025

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The Court notes that Plaintiff has not come forward with precedent establishing qualified immunity as to this claim would not be appropriate. 3.

Raper v. Maxwell

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 15, 2022

Qualified immunity “shields [a] government official from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v. … To defeat qualified immunity, Raper must show Defendants violated his clearly established constitutional rights.

City of Little Rock v. Infant-Toddler Montessori School, Inc.

270 Ark. 697 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 13, 1980

Pursuant to Rule 52 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, the findings of the trial court should not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. … Co., 246 Ark. 210 , 438 S.W. 2d 33 (1969), which holds that the state is immune from costs when it acts in a governmental capacity in an action not brought by it, and appellant urges that we extend that immunity to a municipality

Central Flying Service, Inc. v. Pulaski County Circuit Court

454 S.W.3d 716 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 19, 2015

But, in their motion to dismiss, CFS and Freeney asserted that the Estate failed to allege facts establishing that either of them had acted with the intent to injure Mauldin and, thus, failed to state facts upon which … In sum, as we explained in Entergy Ark., 2014 Ark. 506, ___ S.W.3d ___, where encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Commission is clear, a writ of prohibition is clearly warranted.

Lancaster v. Red Robin International, Inc.

2011 Ark. App. 706 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Nov 16, 2011

The immunity does not extend to a publication of irrelevant | ndefamatory statements that have no relation to the interest entitled to protection. Id. … Clearly, Red Robin and its managers had a legitimate interest in determining whether appellant was giving away beer or selling drugs on the premises.

Ex parte Levy

43 Ark. 42 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 15, 1884

An immunity is much the same. … Constitutional Limitations, lays it down as a maxim of constitutional law, by which all enactments, and we may add, constructions of enactments, are to be tested; that those who make the laws “ are to govern by promulgated, established

Mitchell v. State

298 Ark. 536 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 1989

Finally, the Commission has provided that the completion of the established minimum standards for employment or appointment. must be achieved before employment eligibility is established. … The Commission clearly has established minimum standards that must be met before employment eligibility is established, and Arkansas law invalidates any action taken by an officer before he or she meets Commission standards

Gill v. Saunders

182 Ark. 453 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 20, 1930

court finds to be particularly described and the boundaries thereof clearly designated. … The same findings were made by the circuit court which were made by the county court, and an order establishing the district was made.

Stapleton v. M.D. Limbaugh Construction Co.

333 Ark. 381 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 28, 1998

This interpretation, however, is contrary to our well-established rules of statutory construction. … For these reasons, we hold that by amending section 105 in 1993, the General Assembly clearly intended to extend tort immunity to a prime contractor regardless of whether a subcontractor has paid workers’ compensation benefits

Crum

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 18, 2026

The qualified immunity inquiry consists of two questions: “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown . . . establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly … established” prong of qualified-immunity analysis.

Grayson v. Ross

369 Ark. 241 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 15, 2007

The federal district court further granted summary judgment for Sharum after finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … The federal district court also found that McAllister and Porter were entitled to qualified immunity for their intake of Grayson but not for their post-intake monitoring of him.

Morgan v. Wilson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 16, 2022

The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to ask whether the law was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Finding the law not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, Officer Phaypanya is entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Hatley v. State

289 Ark. 130 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 27, 1986

The evidence clearly supports a finding that the waiver was voluntarily and intelligently given. … The arguments that death-qualified juries are unconstitutional were rejected.