Case law

Lee v. Escobar

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 9, 2022

and his individual capacity claims were barred by qualified immunity. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must dismiss a complaint against a government official in his [or her] individual capacity that fails to state a claim for violation of clearly established statutory or

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Sep 24, 1998

While it would therefore be advisable for candidates to obtain the requisite number of signatures from qualified electors of their respective wards, I cannot conclude that the county clerk would be clearly wrong in accepting … And although § 14-42-206 admittedly establishes specific procedures for municipal candidates in mayor-council cities, it is perhaps of some significance that the language regarding "the undersigned qualified electors of Ward

Cogburn v. Wolfenbarger

85 Ark. App. 206 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 25, 2004

We agree that the trial court’s finding of incapacity was clearly erroneous. It is undisputed that there was no oral testimony or sworn written statement of a qualified professional as required by Ark. … Moreover, as was the case in In the Matter of Bailey, supra, the medical evaluations did not establish findings with respect to adaptive behavior. In that case our supreme court gave the following analysis of Ark.

Chris P. Corbitt, Esq. v. Pulaski County Jail Eric Higgins, in His Official Capacity as Pulaski County Sheriff And Barry Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Pulaski County Judge

660 S.W.3d 568 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 2, 2023

Thus, he claims that because he is an attorney, he has a clearly established right to carry a firearm in a courthouse of this state. … This is known as the “series-qualifier canon.” Id.

Bennett Scott "Storm" Nolan II and River Valley Production, LLC, D/B/A River Valley Relief Cultivation v. 2600 Holdings, LLC, D/B/A Southern Roots Cultivation

686 S.W.3d 499 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 11, 2024

It reasoned that “relief can clearly be accorded to the Plaintiff in [Nolan’s] absence [w]ere he involved or not.” … Nolan clearly satisfies all the elements required by Rule 24(a).

McArthur v. Smallwood

225 Ark. 328 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 27, 1955

Furthermore, these funds clearly qualify as moneys received from sources other than taxes, as that term is ordinarily used. … The Justice Building Fund is established as a trust fund by Section 15 of the Act.

Leaphart v. Williamson

850 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 7, 2012

A jury could find that the Council went to a great deal of trouble to interfere with the Mayor’s effort to hire a qualified, older, black candidate. … Therefore, the Court declines to grant summary judgment on the basis of legislative immunity.

PARAGOULD CABLEVISION v. City of Paragould, Ark.

739 F. Supp. 1314 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 9, 1990

In such injunctive actions, the defendant(s) would be forced to rely on traditional antitrust analysis, rather than the Local Antitrust Act, to seek immunity or to establish other defenses. … Arkansas Board of Dental Examiners, “if the agency or municipality exceeds the bounds of its authority to establish trade restraint, Parker 1 immunity will not attach.” 593 F.Supp. 1354 , 1361 n. 5 (E.D.Ark.1984), aff'd,

Sutton v. Marianna School District A

573 F. Supp. 159 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 30, 1983

First it must be noted that, according to her own allegations, she lost her old position because of a reduction in force (RIF), clearly a reason, assuming the allegation is true, that could in no event be characterized as … The Court noted that: “Respondent here refers to no other right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal laws other than the Due Process Clause of ‘the Fourteenth Amendment simpliciter.”

Board of Commissioners v. Sterling

268 Ark. 998 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 16, 1980

Even though the highway authority may be immune from liability for damage, such immunity is not shared by the contractor. *** Tort damages by an independent contractor are to be distinguished from damages that inevitably … Such distinction is clearly made in White v.

Baptist v. Chandler

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 30, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damage actions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Mason v. Barker

977 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 18, 1997

The court noted later in its opinion that “[njeither the Supreme Court nor this court has announced a clearly established right of persons not in custody or incarcerated to recover for a substantive due process violation … Although they mention the issue, Defendants have not yet raised the defense of qualified immunity. Moreover, no questions of evidentiary sufficiency confront the Court at this stage.

Luis Artero v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. App. 290 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 7, 2025

Nor was the fact that she had been previously qualified as an expert on the subject in other trials definitive as to whether she “was actually qualified as an expert.” … It is a well-established rule that a sentence imposed must be in accordance with the statutes in effect on the date of the crime. State v. Ross, 344 Ark. 364, 367, 39 S.W.3d 789, 791 (2001).

McGhee v. Arkansas State Board of Collection Agencies

360 Ark. 363 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 20, 2005

The Board has established a Division of Check-Cashing to administer the licensing and regulation of payday lenders. … Here, the appellants’ complaint clearly alleges that all plaintiffs were Arkansas residents and taxpayers.

Waukesha Building Corporation v. Jameson

246 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 11, 1965

The third-party defendant Erie in its brief contends as a fundamental proposition that the burden is upon 'O’Brien to establish the jurisdictional facts. … The Hiersche case is clearly distinguishable by virtue of the foreign cor *189 poration’s salesman actively soliciting orders in Oregon.

Loge v. United States

494 F. Supp. 883 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 28, 1980

The second clause of this section reserves immunity for the government for the exercise or omission of discretionary functions regardless of due care. … The members of a panel shall be qualified experts, appointed by the Commissioner, and shall include persons from lists submitted by organizations representing professional, consumer, and industry interests.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Fort Smith School District

455 S.W.3d 294 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2015

This statute clearly applies in the present case to allow the school districts to challenge DHS’s rule requiring all licensed child-care centers to maintain general liability insurance.5 In fact, appellants specifically … Plaintiffs have failed to establish that denial of a preliminary injunction will result in irreparable harm to the applicant. 3.

Fritts v. Payne

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 4, 2020

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge, though, that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law on that point is not clearly established and was not at the time of the alleged … The Magistrate Judge addressed qualified immunity, however, and this Court therefore gave both sides an opportunity to be heard on whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Airsman v. State

473 S.W.3d 549 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 5, 2015

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the circuit court clearly erred in holding that counsel’s performance was not ineffective. Taylor v. State, 2013 Ark. 146, 427 S.W.3d 29. … Contrary to Airsman’s assertions, he failed to establish that he was entitled to postconviction relief on any of his claims.

Rasheed v. Texarkana, Arkansas, City of

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jan 19, 2018

Even assuming Plaintiff has standing to bring this claim, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are immune from civil rights claims brought under § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonably objective party would have known.” Harlow v.