Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 17, 1994

As for any federal claim that might arise in the civil context, it should be noted that public officers and employees are generally entitled to qualified immunity in the federal courts. See Fogel v. … Ark. 1987). 5 In previous opinions issued by this office, it was stated that the law pertaining to records of the ACIC qualify as a specific exmeption to the open records provisions of the FOIA. See Ops. Att'y Gen.

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.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Jones

522 S.W.3d 853 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 31, 2017

Our standard of review for civil contempt is whether the finding of the circuit court is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 10 In order to establish civil contempt, there must be willful disobedience of … Therefore, a finding of contempt under these circumstances is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. The facts of this case are like those found in Applegate v.

Gregory v. Lucas

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 20, 2025

In any event—and at the absolute least—it was not clearly established that Defendants had the responsibility Plaintiff contends. … > To the extent qualified immunity were not an issue, Defendants would be entitled to summary judgment in their favor—because their specific conduct was not unlawful.

State v. Martin

134 Ark. 420 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 3, 1918

We think the language of the act necessarily includes the disease of smallpox and clearly confers the power upon the Board of Health to prevent its entry into and spread throughout the State by rule or order preventing unvaccinated … It is a well established rule of law that legislative bodies have no right to delegate the law making power to executive officers or administrative boards, but it is settled in this State .that the Legislature may delegate

Dove v. Bumpers

364 F. Supp. 407 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 17, 1973

It is clearly established by the evidence that a substantial majority of the funds which were spent by the City, or under the City’s supervision, were spent in areas occupied by the minority race in Pine Bluff. … This argument was clearly rejected by the Supreme Court in Whitcomb v.

Butler v. Mills

61 Ark. 477 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 4, 1896

or change any county seat in the state without the consent of a majority of the qualified voters of the county to be affected by such change, nor until the place or places at which it is proposed to establish or change any … a complete and intelligible description of the proposed locations, together with an abstract of the title thereto and the terms and conditions - upon which the same can be purchased or donated by or to the county”; thus clearly

Fitzgiven v. Dorey

429 S.W.3d 234 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 26, 2013

Relying on section 6-20-1908(f), ADE contends that it in no way acted outside of its authority, as the statute clearly requires the department to make recommendations regarding all aspects of staffing, as well as fiscal … The purpose of the AFAAP is to establish and implement a program by which ADE shall identify, assess, and address school districts in fiscal distress. See Ark. Code Ann. § 6-20- 1902 (Repl. 2007).

Roos v. Clark

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 13, 2022

Redmann,2 for his position that the Eighth Circuit recognizes outdoor recreation as a clearly established constitutional right. Not quite. … Summary judgment is denied as to Roos’ remaining claims because Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on those claims and material issues of fact remain for trial.

Dorothy J. v. Little Rock School District

794 F. Supp. 1405 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 28, 1992

Qualified immunity exists where the defendants’ actions do not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … In determining whether the law involved was clearly established, the court examines the law as it was at the time of the defendants’ actions.

Griffin v. Webb

653 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 3, 2009

Griffin’s § 1983 claim against Webb in her individual capacity survives qualified immunity analysis. … Griffin alleges that Webb violated her right to be free from discrimination based on her gender or pregnancy, a right that was clearly established at the time of Webb’s alleged violation. See Lang v.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Feb 7, 1997

. § 19-10-305 , which grants general immunity to state officers and employees. … No. 92-158 discusses the immunity granted by A.C.A. § 8-6-807 ; A.C.A. § 19-10-305 ; and A.C.A. § 21-9-301 .

Saracini v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

431 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 12, 1977

She must also establish that she applied for a job for which she was qualified, that she was rejected despite her qualifications, and that the position which she sought remained open after her rejection, with the employer … It is clear, however, that higher level jobs, such as the one involved here, 6 are not immune from analysis under Title VII and the standards announced in Rowe. Rogers v.

Robinson v. Holman

181 Ark. 428 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 24, 1930

Appellants brought this action to establish their right as negroes and Democrats to vote in Democratic primary elections in this State. … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor

Polk

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 27, 2026

Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s personal capacity claims based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of his clearly established rights. (Doc. … 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.

Johnson v. Butler

494 S.W.3d 412 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 9, 2016

Because Butler has failed to state a claim sufficient to establish an exception to sovereign immunity under the AWBA, we need not reach the issue of whether the General Assembly can waive the State’s sovereign immunity … Where the State brings a lawsuit, it is clearly not being made “a defendant in any of her courts.” Appellee Butler’s claims do not fit into this “exception” to sovereign immunity.

Cude v. State

237 Ark. 927 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 6, 1964

against the disease of smallpox, and thereafter enrolled in the public schools of this State, all in accordance with the laws of this State, and all to be done by qualified and licensed and practicing physicians of this … No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment, . denomination or mode of worship

Roeben v. BG EXCELSIOR LTD. PARTNERSHIP

2009 Ark. App. 646 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 7, 2009

He claims that his and his wife’s testimony established reputational injuries. … The immunity does not extend to a publication of irrelevant defamatory statements which have no relation to the interest entitled to protection. Id., 763 S.W.2d at 637 .

Fennell v. City of Pine Bluff

2015 Ark. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 1, 2015

immunity; (5) the circuit  Cite as 2015 Ark. … App. 216 court erred in dismissing appellants’ overtime claims based on the statute of limitations when they clearly alleged a denial of overtime as recently as 2012, suit was filed in 2011, the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act

Cobb v. Stringer

660 F. Supp. 1133 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 3, 1987

There are two essential elements of a 1983 action which have been clearly established by the United States Supreme Court. … To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.