Case law

Scamardo v. Scott County, Ark.

12 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 8, 1998

Legislative Immunity. … The doctrine of legislative immunity clearly protects legislators from individual liability under § 1983 for carrying out then-legislative functions, but whether the doc-- *943 trine is available to protect the County itself

Thomas v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

319 Ark. 782 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 13, 1995

The construction of a state statute by an administrative agency is not overturned unless it is clearly wrong. Id. … Medical Services Policy 3332.2 #13a states a Medicaid Qualifying Trust is a trust or “similar legal device” established by an individual (or his spouse) who is the beneficiary of the trust and who gives a trustee any discretion

Ho

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

Defendants then argue that even if Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for excessive force, Trooper Arnold would still be entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that his actions … Qualified immunity entitles a public official to immunity from suit under § 1983 unless their actions: 1) violated constitutional or statutory rights; and 2) those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged

Sloan v. Voluntary Ambulance Service

37 Ark. App. 138 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Mar 11, 1992

Based on these facts, we find that VAS is immune from liability for claimant’s injury under Ark. Code Ann. §11-9-102 (3)(A) (iii). … ESTABLISHMENT. There is hereby established pursuant to Ark. Stat. § 82-3410 — § 82-3420 an emergency medical service district known as Northeast Benton County Emergency Medical Service District. ARTICLE IX.

State of Arkansas v. Luis Ramirez

2026 Ark. 92 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 30, 2026

Because this record does not support a finding of detrimental reliance, the circuit court clearly erred by estopping the State from exercising its statutory right to refile. KAREN R. … Stated another way, this court will accept appeals by the State only when its holding will establish an important precedent for the correct and uniform administration of justice. State v.

Shelton

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 9, 2026

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … statutory right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 17, 2007

Rather it establishes the framework of government with such specific restraints as are thought to be of eternal value and hence worthy of immunity from passing differences of opinion. … In my opinion, precluding only constitutional officers from engaging in such dual employment would clearly pass a rational-basis analysis.

Smith v. Rogers Group, Inc.

348 Ark. 241 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 18, 2002

Acquired immunity is not immunity from suit; rather, it is immunity from liability. … Unlike AHTD, Rogers is not an entity that enjoys immunity from suit in tort. This conclusion is clearly illustrated by the fact that Appellants were able to sue the contractor directly in the circuit court.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 1, 2022

With respect to qualified immunity, “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Gulick is entitled to qualified immunity “unless [Williams] has plausibly stated both (i) a claim for violation of his [constitutional rights]; and (ii) that he right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Jones v. Clinton

869 F. Supp. 690 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 28, 1994

Thus, the hard fact is that these issues of immunity, whether absolute or qualified, have been left in the hands of the Judicial Branch, particularly the Supreme Court. … He adds: "Maine even suggests that the framers of the Constitution may have had in mind the powers of George III, when they established the powers of the American presidency."

Roach v. Madden

728 F. Supp. 537 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 20, 1989

Second, *539 as an alternative contention, he alleged that his actions were such that a reasonable officer could have believed them lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time … Thus, he maintained that he was entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Plaintiff responded to this motion on October 30, 1989.

Thomas v. State

315 Ark. 504 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 18, 1994

Sufficiency of the evidence In his first argument, Thomas contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he had committed the crimes with which he was charged. … He stated that he had been given immunity for his testimony in a 1977 capital murder trial.

Taylor v. Capital One Financial Corp

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 25, 2024

immunity because a Fourteenth Amendment right to informational privacy is not a clearly established constitutional right. … Because this purported right is still not clearly established, the individual defendants have qualified immunity. See Jackson v. Ramsey Cnty. Adult Det. Ctr., No. 21-CV-0929, 2022 WL 2374666, at *6 (D.

Jones

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

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions … so, was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 9, 2005

My predecessor therefore concluded that: "[t]his statute clearly authorizes those charged with the duty to investigate reports of suspected child abuse to have access to students upon school property for purposes of conducting … Sincerely, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General MB: ECW/cyh 1 The requester inquired about parental rights under 20 U.S.C. § 1232g , the "Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act." 2 For a more recent case involving qualified immunity

Lendall v. Cook

432 F. Supp. 971 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 27, 1977

The Act provides for scholarships for qualifying students attending “approved” public or private colleges in the state. § 80-3376. Students qualify on the basis of need and academic ability. § 80-3377. … Secular purpose The Act clearly has a secular purpose.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 4, 2003

That act provided that the motor vehicle fuel tax in border cities would be the same rate as in the adjoining state, not to exceed a rate established in the act. … Other border cities (such as West Memphis) did not qualify for the benefit, because they were not divided from the adjoining state by a street state line.

Parkman v. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Committee

307 S.W.3d 6 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 16, 2009

Supp. 2006), provides: (3)(A) The basis of the request for administrative review shall be clearly stated and any documentary evidence attached. … The Committee responds that the record clearly reflects that the statutory requirements for assessing a sexually violent predator were satisfied.

Cook, Commissioner of Revenues v. Wilson

208 Ark. 459 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 2, 1945

The federal statutes show that national forests are established in two ways: (a) by presidential proclamation declaring certain lands of the public domain to be a national forest. … Executive construction of a statute is entitled to consideration by the courts, and should not be disregarded except for cogent reasons, or unless clearly erroneous. 59 C. J. 1027; 25 R. C. L. 1045; 42 Am.

Frye v. Watson

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Sep 15, 2025

“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.” Ching ex rel. Jordan v. … They argue that it is clearly established that “probable cause is required for an arrest.” ECF No. 44, p. 10. However, the Fryes have not shown that the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established.