Case law

Arkansas 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.

Meyers v. Yamato Kogyo Co.

2020 Ark. 136 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 9, 2020

They were not involved in employment decisions at Arkansas Steel Associates, such as hiring or firing employees, paying wages, training, providing workers’ compensation or other benefits, or establishing work schedules. … In other words, “referential and qualifying phrases, where no contrary intention appears, relate only to the last antecedent.”

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 21, 2005

In federal court, the county may be able to claim "qualified immunity." … Qualified immunity applies to the actions of individual officers and employees who undertook the performance of their governmental duties in good faith and whose actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional

Edmond v. Winters

226 F. Supp. 3d 914 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 22, 2016

Qualified immunity insulates government officials from liability in their individual capacities so long as they have not violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Parrish v. … Even if the application of the Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act to Edmond violated the ex post facto clause, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 2003

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.

Norfleet v. ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants' actions do not violate "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Pearson v. City of Paris

839 F. Supp. 645 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 2, 1993

Qualified Immunity- Defendant Ford’s final argument is that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a “government official performing discretionary functions.” … Once a court determines as a matter of law that a legal standard governing the governmental action at issue was clearly established, there' is no qualified immunity. Id.

Marley v. Crawford County, Arkansas

383 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 12, 2005

Qualified immunity shields defendants “[f]rom liability for civil damages *1132 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 204-07, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity does not shield conduct which violates clearly established rights; inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is

Chad Kelley, in His Capacity as Jefferson County Corner and Individually v. Bryan Adams, Brandon Adams, and Skylar Wilson

2024 Ark. App. 440 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 18, 2024

We have stated that section 21-9-301 “establishes . . . an immunity defense.”6 We have also said that section 21-9-301 provides immunity from civil liability for negligent acts but not for intentional torts.7 Kelley … He contends that common-law qualified immunity protects public officials “from liability in their individual capacity unless they violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would know.”

Brown v. Gammage

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 12, 2022

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 … Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Based on this finding, the Court need not determine whether an implicated right was clearly established at the time.

Smith v. Daniel

452 S.W.3d 575 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2014

clearly established and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Chevallier v. Hand

884 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 6, 2012

Because an “in the presence” requirement for a warrantless police arrest on a misdemeanor offense is “far from clearly established,” according to the Eighth Circuit, the question of whether Defendant is entitled to qualified … If Defendant had probable cause to arrest, under the circumstances, his actions would receive qualified immunity. Veatch, 627 F.3d at 1259 .

Vent v. Johnson

303 S.W.3d 46 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2009

We disagree and hold that the qualified immunity afforded by section 21-9-301 must be asserted and proven as an affirmative defense. … In addition, in discussing the difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity, this court has stated (in a somewhat different context) that, while absolute immunity “bars a suit at the outset,” qualified immunity

Norfleet v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants’ actions do not violate “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hollowell v. Gravett

703 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 19, 1988

In the alternative, Givens claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity in that he was not violating clearly established law. In Imbler v. … a defense of qualified immunity.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 9, 1991

If a plaintiff could conceive of a viable federal legislative or constitutional claim based upon the facts you have stated, only qualified immunity would exist for individual officers involved, and the actual political subdivisions … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), (stating that test of qualified immunity for individual officers turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established

Malik Muntaqim, Adc No. 088633 v. James Gibson, Warden, Varner Unit, Arkansas Division of Correction

2024 Ark. App. 456 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 25, 2024

in their individual are entitled to qualified immunity. … Under this analysis, a state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff has alleged facts that demonstrate (1) the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 13, 1996

Does a volunteer physician establish a traditional doctor-patient relationship with a patient who comes to the clinic for care? … of the services or benefits of a volunteer by reason of any act of omission of a qualified volunteer in connection with the volunteer except as follows : * * * (4) Where the qualified volunteer negligently performs professional

Jackson v. Sparks Regional Medical Center

375 Ark. 533 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 12, 2009

This court has also established eight factors to consider when determining whether an entity is entitled to charitable immunity: (1) whether the organization’s charter limits it to charitable or eleemosynary purposes; (2) … The Scamardo I decision upheld the principle established in Clayborn v.

Malik Muntaqim, Adc No. 088633 v. James Gibson, Warden, Varner Unit, Arkansas Division of Correction

2024 Ark. App. 456 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 25, 2024

in their individual are entitled to qualified immunity. … Under this analysis, a state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff has alleged facts that demonstrate (1) the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established