Case law

LeClaire v. Dyer

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 31, 2023

for failure to state a claim as a matter of law, and (3) that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Officers are “entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless: (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

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.

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.

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.

City of Little Rock v. Dayong Yang

509 S.W.3d 632 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 9, 2017

The policies submitted by Yang established facts that MEMS did not dispute, thus leaving only a matter of statutory interpretation. See, e.g., Rose v. Harbor E., Inc., 2013 Ark. 496, at 5, 430 S.W.3d 773, 777. … We have stated that this immunity is qualified, and an employee or district can be sued to the extent that insurance coverage exists. Carter v. Bush, 296 Ark. 261, 753 S.W.2d 534 (1998).

International Tobacco Partners, Ltd. v. Beebe

420 F. Supp. 2d 989 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 6, 2006

The state action immunity doctrine arose out of the case of Parker v. … Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 , 107 S.Ct. 720 , 93 L.Ed.2d 667 (1987), the Court noted that it had, over time, established a two-part test for determining state action immunity under Parker : the challenged restraint must be “clearly

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.

Dildine v. Clark Equipment Co.

282 Ark. 130 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 26, 1984

Mink did admit to not having a lot of industrial experience in machine design, but he clearly considered himself qualified to give opinions in the case, saying “I am well aware of the fundamentals of machine design.” … That testimony, if admitted and believed, certainly would have tended to establish the issues of strict liability and negligence in design and it was error for the court not to submit the case to the jury on the basis of

Meraz v. Gray

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 8, 2025

Qualified Immunity – Deliberate Indifference Claims Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. … 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

Hopkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

79 Ark. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Aug 28, 2002

Dependency-neglect must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-325 (h)(2)(B) (Repl. 2002). … Thus, we conclude that the circuit court did not clearly err in adjudicating M.J. dependent-neglected.

Weiss v. Bryce Co., LLC

330 S.W.3d 756 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 17, 2009

Tax exemption cases are reviewed de novo on appeál, and the findings of fact of the trial court are not set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. Weiss v. … Berry, 41 Ark. 509 (1883), states that grants of immunity from taxation "should be so clear that there can be neither reasonable doubt nor controversy about [their] terms.”

Handle v. City of Little Rock

772 F. Supp. 434 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 20, 1991

Defendant argues that the plaintiff has alleged no facts and cited no authority which demonstrate that Chief Caudell violated clearly established law and is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his individual capacity … on the basis of qualified immunity.

Claudio v. Guthrie

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 7, 2025

Defendant Guthrie next contends he is entitled to qualified immunity. … In evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the Court asks two questions: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 10, 2005

of a modicum of support is established in both instances by a 3% signature requirement. … Section 7-7-205 (a)(2) of the Code provides that one might establish a new political party by filing a petition containing "the signatures of qualified electors of this state equal in number to at least three percent (3%)

Anderson v. State

213 Ark. 871 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 4, 1948

His participation in the enterprise is established by affidavit filed in Circuit Court in the form of motion for a bill of particulars. The arrests were made in September 1947. … The trial court did not find with the defendants on a question of fact that might clearly distinguish the activities.

Johnson v. Williams

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

Qualified Immunity as to Individual Capacity Claim As to Mr. Johnson’s individual-capacity, excessive-force claim, Defendant Reddick asserts qualified immunity. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions] would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 31, 2000

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 … More specifically, this provision appears to refer to the protections established in Section 4.

Tim Griffin, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Arkansas v. Arkansas Board of Corrections; And Benny Magness, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Arkansas Board of Corrections

2025 Ark. 81 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 22, 2025

The court found that the Attorney General had violated Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-16-702 (Repl. 2024), which establishes statutory duties surrounding appointment of special counsel, and ordered that the Attorney … Clearly the state defendants are entitled to legal counsel. 2  8.

Barnes v. Green

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 14, 2021

In their Summary Judgment papers, Defendants focus solely on the first prong of the qualified immunity standard and apparently concede the “clearly established” prong. … Instead, “[a] more specific and particularized inquiry is necessary in order to assess clearly established law in the context of an assertion of qualified immunity.” Thurmond v.