Case law

Trammell v. Wright

489 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

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.

Simons v. Marshall

369 Ark. 447 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2007

In this regard, Simons argues that Marshall failed to allege facts sufficient to establish malice and in the absence of malice, he is entitled to qualified immunity under section 19-10-305(a). … There, this court recognized that an official is immune from suit if his actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Jaggers v. Zolliecoffer

290 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).

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.”

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 .

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 · 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

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

Ozarks Unlimited Resources Cooperative, Inc. v. Daniels

333 Ark. 214 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 14, 1998

Roper, 302 Ark. 125, 128 , 788 S.W.2d 470 (1990), we noted that: “The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established.” Id. … Accordingly, the instant case falls within the well-settled line of cases permitting review of summary-judgment denials based on qualified immunity, and warrants our review.

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

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