Case law

Brown v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration

180 F. Supp. 3d 602 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 8, 2016

a state official, even if the State is otherwise protected by sovereign immunity. … The policy banning solicitations, if prompted by these sorts of complaints, is clearly not directed to Rev.

JOHN ASHLEY RODRIGUES v. DAVID FREEZE; TERRY DARDEN; VICTOR ROSE; and DANIEL SIMMONS

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 18, 2026

from suit pursuant to prosecutorial immunity. … immunity.

Maxey v. Kadrovach

696 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Oct 13, 1988

immunity. … Counts I through IV of plaintiff’s amended complaint all “sound” in “constitutional tort” of the type established by Bivens and disallowed in Bush .

Neal v. Arkansas, State of

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 8, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s personal capacity claims against them. (Doc. No. 59 at 23.) … Qualified immunity protects government officials who acted in an objectively reasonable manner and shields an official from liability when his or her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Tanner v. Ziegenhorn

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 22, 2020

Trooper Ziegenhorn seeks qualified immunity here. … The Court therefore denies Ziegenhorn qualified immunity on this claim without prejudice.

Dixon v. Roberts

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 24, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacity so long as the official has not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’”

Hales v. Wakefield

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 25, 2023

Qualified immunity protects government officials from § 1983 liability for damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, does not establish a constitutional violation; or (2) the constitutional right was not clearly established

Ruiz v. Harmon

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 28, 2019

With respect to whether Corporal Harmon and Sergeant Fry’s June 21, 2017, alleged actions violated clearly established law, the Court further agrees with Judge Kearney that the relevant law was clearly established at that … Ruiz, establish a violation of his constitutional right and that Corporal Harmon and Sergeant Fry are not entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr. Ruiz’s excessive force claim.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. R.P.

333 Ark. 516 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 11, 1998

The evidence to that point established that the P. family still had no water or electricity at the house. … Sovereign immunity.

Benton v. Higgins

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 6, 2023

ANALYSIS Qualified immunity protects government officials from § 1983 liability for damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … clearly established such that a reasonable official would not have known his or her actions were unlawful.

Fugett v. State

208 Ark. 979 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jul 2, 1945

This ownership is recognized and established both by the title and the provisions of the act. … Courts are not authorized to strike down a law enacted by the General Assembly unless it clearly appears that the law contravenes some provision of the constitution; and, in case of’doubt as to the constitutionality of a

Pollreis v. Marzolf

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 13, 2020

right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … The “arguable reasonable suspicion” test is another way of saying that a plaintiff must establish the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity. E/l-Ghazzawy v. Berthiaume, 636 F.3d 452, 459 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pop-A-Duck, Inc. v. Gardner

642 S.W.3d 220 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 23, 2022

Here, we find that the circuit court’s order reflects that the lower court was citing Anita and Merritt in an effort to explore what acts qualify as “adverse” rather than what qualifies as “hostile conduct.” … Public-Easement Analysis For their last point on appeal, appellants argue that the circuit court clearly erred by denying the appellants’ request to establish a public easement.

Perry v. State

277 Ark. 357 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 15, 1982

When the above answer was given, a proper foundation had not been established. … XXL THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN QUALIFYING THE JURY FOR THE DEATH PENALTY. Before the voir dire of the prospective jurors the appellant moved the court to prohibit the state from “death qualifying” the panel.

Miller v. State

240 Ark. 340 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 21, 1966

To admit expert testimony deduced from a scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is to be made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which … Admission of the unsubstantiated, speculative testimony on probabilities was clearly erroneous. See Little v. George Feed & Supply Co., 233 Ark. 78 , 342 S.

Minor L. McNeil v. Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration; Robert Pugh, Manager; And Wade Gambill, Auditor

2021 Ark. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Oct 27, 2021

Facts and Procedural History A long-standing disagreement has been established during multiple previous lawsuits between McNeil and DFA regarding what the Arkansas Constitution defines … as the reserved immunities of its people; what Arkansas taxing statutes clearly state—as passed by the legislature; and how those laws vary from the way in which DFA interprets and administers its tax programs.

Pace v. State

2010 Ark. App. 491 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Jun 16, 2010

Value may be sufficiently established by circumstances that clearly show a value in excess of the statutory requirement, including through the testimony of a witness who actually knows the value of the property. … We find no merit in appellant’s attempt to qualify an employee’s testimony regarding the value of merchandise based upon a certain number of price tags that the employee must read before qualifying to testify on the issue

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 25, 2001

the corporation as organized and operated in fact qualified as a "public benefit corporation." … Finally, although you have not raised the issue in your request, I feel obliged to note that the three municipalities referenced in your request clearly qualify as "public agencies" authorized to undertake an approved joint

Alexander v. Davis

346 Ark. 310 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 25, 2001

The judge’s reliance on Patton is clearly misplaced. As noted by the appellants, the Patton case demonstrates the very worst in Arkansas reconstruction politics when fraud and intimidation of voters were rampant. … That provision clearly reflects that it applies to election-contest proceedings as authorized in Ark. Code Ann. §§ 7-5-801 , et seq. (Repl. 2000).

Ark. Cmty. Corr. v. Barnes

542 S.W.3d 841 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 12, 2018

Such an interpretation clearly conflicts with other provisions of the constitution which is a fact the majority conveniently chose to ignore in Andrews . … In actuality, the legislature's establishment of the Claims Commission appears to be precisely what article 5, section 20 was intended to prohibit.