Case law

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.

Thornsberry v. Kelly

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 29, 2024

But, in the Court’s view, the PFR should have more directly addressed one particular portion of the relevant qualified-immunity analysis. … For purposes of qualified immunity, then, the Court concludes that, by May 3, 2021, it was clearly established that a correctional officer violated the First Amendment if, as retaliation for the filing of a grievance, the

Bailey v. State

238 Ark. 210 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 1964

We are unable to understand the reason for the remaining point argued by appellant, since this question has been clearly answered contrary to the contention made. In Bailey v. … in the automobile after Bailey was placed under arrest, it is pointed out in Volume 1 of Searches, Seizures and Immunities, Section 5, Page 104, ‘ ‘ The general rule of law is that when a man is legally arrested for an offense

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.

Jacobs v. Gulf Insurance Co.

85 Ark. App. 435 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 31, 2004

Our standard of review in summary judgment cases is well established. … Clearly, this court has presumed a vehicle other than the plaintiff-insured’s must be involved when the insured is entitled to collect under uninsured motorist coverage.

Gross v. State

8 Ark. App. 241 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 25, 1983

Croughen was also granted immunity from prosecution but refused to testify even with immunity, and he did not return to the witness stand. … State, 278 Ark. 550 , 648 S.W.2d 44 (1983), its rationale and implications are clearly applicable.

Kelley v. Johnson

496 S.W.3d 346 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 23, 2016

The Act establishes the current method by which executions are to be conducted in Arkansas. … of immunity.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 14, 2009

BY A STATE AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION; PROVIDING THAT VERIFICATION OF LAWFUL PRESENCE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAID, FOR SHORT-TERM, IN-KIND EMERGENCY DISASTER RELIEF, FOR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSISTANCE FOR IMMUNIZATIONS … 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."

Johnson v. State

307 Ark. 525 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 13, 1992

The fact that in a particular case it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. … Thus, the court’s regular practice exceeds the 48-hour period we deem constitutionally permissible, meaning that the County is not immune from systemic challenges, such as this class action.

Paulino v. QHG of Springdale, Inc.

386 S.W.3d 462 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 2012

hiring, the plaintiff must show (1) that an inadequate background check was done or there was the complete absence of a background check; (2) that a proper background check would have revealed that the employee was not qualified … Essex, 341 Ark. 558, 563 , 19 S.W.3d 585, 589 (2000) (finding that this court gives a narrow ]ir,view to the tort of outrage, and requires clear-cut proof to establish the elements in outrage cases).

Charles E. Hamner v. Arkansas County Sheriff's Department & Detention Facility

2026 Ark. App. 56 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jan 28, 2026

They included with the motion an “Alternative Answer” denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting the defenses of qualified immunity, tort immunity, immunity from punitive damages for official-capacity claims … Jones, 2019 Ark. 204, at 4, 575 S.W.3d 111, 115 (bare allegations and conclusory statements will not establish a constitutional claim).

Ross v. Helena-West Helena Arkansas, City of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 30, 2020

were not clearly established at the time.” … Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “the plaintiff must demonstrate the law was clearly established.” Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007).

Esterline Technologies Corporation; Armtec Countermeasures Co.; And Charles King v. Aaron Brownlee and Mary Brownlee

617 S.W.3d 256 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 18, 2021

Brownlee also argued that he needed additional discovery to establish Esterline’s legal relationship and potential liability. … Likewise, the Commission determines whether employer immunity under the Act extended to Charles King, Armtec’s supervisor of health and safety.

THOMAS BY CITY NAT. BANK v. Valmac Industries, Inc.

306 Ark. 228 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 1, 1991

The appellants look to the Arkansas Business Corporation Act to establish liability on the part of Tyson. Ark. … Thus, in this case, Guy Thomas clearly had a third-party claim against Valmac at the time he sustained his injury.

Kurrus Ex Rel. Arkansans to Protect Police, Libraries, Education, & Services (APPLES) v. Priest

342 Ark. 434 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 24, 2000

This is an impermissible impairment of contract clearly contrary to the Arkansas and United States Constitutions. … ALL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF TAX, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUCH THAT THE TAXPAYERS IN FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OUGHT NOT TO ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR THE TAX; PROVIDING THAT SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Thompson v. Ecological Science Corp.

295 F. Supp. 1307 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 6, 1969

Thus, federal subject matter jurisdiction is established. … Therefore, defendant is subject to service of process herein in Arkansas, although it is not qualified to do business in Arkansas.”

Dockery v. Morgan

380 S.W.3d 377 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 3, 2011

We held that appellants’ complaint clearly alleged the use of public funds; that appellants’ allegations survived a motion to dismiss; and that the circuit court erroneously dismissed the taxpayers’ illegal-exaction claim … Section 19-10-305 provides state employees with qualified immunity from civil liability for nonmalicious acts occurring within the course of their employment. See City of Fayetteville v.

Roeder v. United States

432 S.W.3d 627 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 10, 2014

The defendants argued that they were immune from liability pursuant to the ARUS because the evidence did not establish a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity … Bank of Am., 356 Ark. 576, 584, 157 S.W.3d 174, 179 (2004).7 Strict construction requires that nothing be taken as intended that is not clearly expressed. E.g., Estate of Hull v. Union Pac. R.R.

Webb

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 20, 2026

Qualified Immunity The motion to dismiss Webb’s claims against the quorum court members based on qualified immunity is denied. … To overcome qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, Webb must allege (1) that the defendants violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Hamilton v. Earl

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 28, 2024

“In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” Arnold v. … Courts may choose to analyze the clearly established prong of qualified immunity prior to determining if a plaintiff established a claim for violation of their constitutional rights. See Pearson v.