Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,882 results
0.69s
17 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 10, 1998
A court must measure the objective reasonableness of a Defendant’s conduct by reference to clearly established law. “No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”
Cited 3 timesPublishedGordon v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas
168 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 10, 2016
The individual defendants 7 contend they are enti- *1156 tied to qualified immunity from Gordon’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims 8 because the conduct alleged fails to state a violation of a clearly established federal right of … But the former UALR employees — Norwood and Peterson— are also entitled to qualified immunity if Gordon fails to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.
Cited 7 timesPublished592 S.W.3d 619 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 16, 2020
Under that standard, Appellees are entitled to statutory immunity unless they transgress “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” See Rainey v. … The factual allegations within the complaint failed to establish an exception to sovereign immunity and avoid statutory immunity.
Cited 12 timesPublishedReginald R. Early v. Keith Crockett, Clayborn Carroll, Roberta Lewis, and Lamon Mayo
2019 Ark. 274 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 2019
Appellees, as state employees, are protected by qualified immunity. See Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-305 (Supp. 2017). State employees’ qualified immunity extends to section 1983 claims. See Robinson v. … Under the standard of qualified immunity, a government official will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate a clearly established statutory constitutional right of which a reasonable person would
Cited 1 timesPublished641 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 11, 1986
Knox’s claims of qualified immunity. Ms. Ginter has not brought the Court’s attention to any clearly established law which movants’ conduct on June 3, 1983, violated. The claims against Mr. Blasingame and Mr. … Where the plaintiff can point to no clearly established law that the federal agents violated, they will be entitled to qualified immunity, as discussed above, regardless of their subjective state of mind.
Modified on other grounds by Ginter v. Stallcup, 869 F.2d 384 (1989)Cited 12 timesPublished27 F. Supp. 3d 962 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 13, 2014
Qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Weaver v. Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1995). … Even so, named defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs’ allegedly violated constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time.
Cited 1 timesPublished858 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 21, 1994
In such cases, courts are required to determine whether the alleged actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … To decide whether an official is protected by qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the official’s action was objectively legally reasonable in the light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 4, 2022
Defendant Gulick argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional deprivation and, even assuming that he did, the implicated right was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of
Cited 0 timesUnknown17 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 26, 1998
A court must measure the objective reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct by reference to clearly established law. “No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”
Cited 6 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 19, 2001
The city might further face liability under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , for the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
Cited 0 timesPublished453 S.W.3d 674 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 2015
The two-part test for judicial immunity established by Stump, 435 U.S. 349, requires that we determine whether the judge named by appellant in the complaint had jurisdiction to act on the in rem complaint filed in Miller … When the actions of a prosecuting attorney involve his role as an administrator or investigator, he is entitled to qualified, rather than absolute, immunity.
Cited 5 timesPublishedMalik Muntaqim, Adc 088633 v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
641 S.W.3d 35 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 16, 2022
conduct violated that clearly established right. … Otherwise, a state official is immune from individual-capacity suits if his or her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.
Cited 7 timesPublished297 Ark. 444 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 17, 1989
Both of these cases concerned qualified privilege or immunity. … It was clearly a privileged publication. Neither the allegations in the complaint nor other matters presented to the court, even if established at trial, would support a finding of malice.
Cited 33 timesPublishedNucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines
326 Ark. 217 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 7, 1996
The qualified immunity claim is a claim of right which is separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the complaint. . . . … Beaumont, supra, and stated: “The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established.” Virden v. Roper, 302 Ark. at 128 , 788 S.W.2d at 472 .
Cited 41 timesPublishedArkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 17, 2001
The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 24, 2021
Qualified immunity protects government officials who acted in an objectively reasonable manner and shields them from liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, such that reasonable officials would not have known their actions were unlawful.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFore v. Circuit Court of Izard County
292 Ark. 13 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 20, 1987
undisputed and the writ is clearly warranted. … Beaumont, 291 Ark. 477 , 725 S.W.2d 839 (1987), that the defense of qualified immunity presents an exception to this rule. The present defense is based upon a claim of statutory immunity.
Overruled on other grounds by Wise Co., Inc. v. CLAY CIRCUIT, EASTERN DIST., 315 Ark. 333 (1994)Cited 23 timesPublishedArkansas Department of Environmental Quality v. Al-Madhoun
374 Ark. 28 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2008
The circuit court further ruled that qualified immunity did not apply to the individual defendants because there was an exception to qualified immunity for malicious acts and intentional torts under Ark. … In response, Appellees assert that the employees are not entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities.
Cited 15 timesPublished489 S.W.3d 636 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2016
For example, “qualified immunity” is defined as the “[a]ffirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raised a genuine
Cited 11 timesPublished290 Ark. 250 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1986
was not entitled to a qualified immunity. … Forsyth, supra, it is clearly stated that the qualified immunity of federal officials is an immunity from suit, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
Cited 12 timesPublished
Ask Donna