Case law

Matthews v. Martin

280 Ark. 345 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 10, 1983

The legislature promptly enacted Act 165 of 1969 reinstating municipal immunity to tort liability as a matter of public policy. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 12-2901 (Repl. 1979). In Hardin v. … The immunity granted to municipalities extends to the city’s officials and employees. Jones v. Sewer Improvement District No. 3, 119 Ark. 166 , 177 S.W. 888 (1915). Affirmed.

City of Farmington v. Smith

366 Ark. 473 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 1, 2006

were violative of a clearly established law. … they knew their actions violated any clearly established laws.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jun 23, 1994

immunity in federal court. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (stating that the 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

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 8, 2004

Martin, 280 Ark. 345 , 658 S.W.2d 374 (1983) (holding that qualified immunity will not apply if the challenged conduct violates clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known). … However, because negligence is a state, not a federal, claim, your question does not raise any issue of qualified immunity.

Howard v. Fisk

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Mar 18, 2020

Thus, the Court must conclude that Fisk is entitled to qualified immunity and dismiss all individual capacity claims against her. See Estate of Walker v. … Wallace, 881 F.3d 1056, 1060 (8th Cir. 2018) (“An individual is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”)

Heslip v. Lobbs

554 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 7, 1982

Rather than pass on the defendants’ qualified immunity claim, the Supreme Court reshaped the contours of the qualified immunity standard, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. 3 In numerous cases, cited supra, courts … In essence, the qualified immunity defense attempts to accommodate these competing social goals. The Harlow opinion suggests that evolving standards for qualified immunity had rendered the defense negligible in effect.

Keesee v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 19, 2024

Burrows is also entitled to qualified immunity because his acts were authorized by a court order and thus did not violate Keesee’s clearly established statutory rights. See Frierson v. Goetz, 227 F. … Louis, 39 F.4th 494, 507 (8th Cir. 2022) (reversing denial of qualified immunity “because it is not clearly established that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not apply to § 1983 conspiracy claims”).

Levine v. City of Eureka Springs, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 29, 2017

Featherstone are each entitled to qualified immunity from Mr. Levine’s claims against them in their individual capacities. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”

Fegans v. Norris

351 Ark. 200 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 21, 2002

A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and raised a genuine issue … The appellee officials are immune from suit in this action because they did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Brown

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 2, 2026

Ernst, 933 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2019); Morgan, 920 F.3d at 523 (in determining whether an officer has qualified immunity, courts must answer whether the officer violated a clearly established right). … For all of these reasons, Brown did not violate Nelson’s clearly established rights.

Estate of De'Angelo Brown v. West

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 30, 2022

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2020) (examining when a right is clearly established for qualified immunity analysis). Moore, 514 F.3d at 760. … Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2020) (examining when a right is clearly established for qualified immunity analysis).

Robinson v. Beaumont

291 Ark. 477 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Mar 16, 1987

This immunity is guaranteed so long as the actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the complaint fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law the defense of qualified immunity is appropriate and the suit should not be allowed to proceed.

Johnson v. Wilfong

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 19, 2025

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 positions … State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Although the defendant bears the burden of proof for this affirmative defense [of qualified immunity], the plaintiff must demonstrate that the law was clearly established

Barrows v. Collins

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 15, 2019

Qualified Immunity The Court need not engage in a qualified-immunity analysis in this case, as it already found that none of Barrows’s claims amount to the deprivation of a constitutional right. … McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an official may be entitled to qualified immunity if the facts show that the plaintiff has been deprived of a constitutional right and that the right was clearly

Blevins v. Hudson

489 S.W.3d 165 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2016

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when they are performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, courts evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the-plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Banks v. Jones

575 S.W.3d 111 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 6, 2019

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under Section 1983 unless they transgress "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Banks is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged, construed in a light most favorable to Jones, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at

Baldridge v. Cordes

350 Ark. 114 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Sep 26, 2002

Qualified Immunity A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established and … Thus, 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. Virden v.

City of Fayetteville v. Romine

373 Ark. 318 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 1, 2008

violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is 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. … his conduct violated that clearly established right.

Smith v. BRT

363 Ark. 126 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 30, 2005

Under that analysis, a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated the constitutional right is clearly established, … qualified immunity under Ark.

Virden v. Roper

302 Ark. 125 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 1990

The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established. Robinson v. Beaumont, supra; Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985); and see Cohen v. … They maintain in the alternative if a violation of a constitutional right occurred, it is not a “clearly established” right and, hence, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity under Mitchell, supra.