Case law

Courtney v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Public Safety

722 F.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 15, 2013

Ct. 2088, 2095–96 (2012) (discussing Supreme Court authority which had “injected uncertainty” into clearly established law in the qualified immunity context). Smith’s reading of Moore, Devenpeck, and Atwater is flawed … Alternatively, the district court concluded Smith was entitled to qualified immunity on Courtney’s claim of unlawful arrest because he did not violate clearly established law.

Parker v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.

835 F.3d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2016

It is by now well-established that an order denying federal qualified immunity satisfies the above requirements. See Schmelz v. Monroe Cty., 954 F.2d 1540 , 1543 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Mitchell v. … Rule 38 sanctions are appropriately imposed against appellants who raise “clearly frivolous claims in the face of established law and clear facts.” Farese v.

Smith v. Mattox

127 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 1997

immunity grounds to the extent the appeal concerns pure issues of law, such as whether the law was clearly established); Cottrell v. … An official sued as an individual is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."6 A reasonable official's

United States v. Albert Tantalo

680 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 3, 1982

Defense counsel urged that since the appellant had provided immunized testimony before the grand jury, the Government was called upon to present evidence to the court to establish not only an independent basis for the indictment … The district court’s ruling which upheld the indictments, without calling upon the government to establish that the evidence it proposed to present at the trial was untainted by the appellant’s immunized testimony, was in

Margaret Cowan, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria Cooper v. Michael Breen, Town of North Branford, Consolidated-Defendant-Appellant

352 F.3d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 18, 2003

If the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity inquiry ends and the plaintiff may not recover. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Was the law clearly established? Breen, relying on County of Sacramento v.

Oliverio Martinez v. City of Oxnard Oxnard Police Dept. Art Lopez, Chief Maria Pena Andrew Salinas Ron Zavala, and Ben Chavez

337 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2003

We entertained at that time only the interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Chavez. … Because, under the facts alleged by Martinez, Chavez violated Martinez’s clearly established due process rights, see Saucier v.

Dillon Bracken v. Kinchung Chung

869 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2017

Qualified Immunity We first address whether Chung may invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity. “There are two questions that must be answered” when an officer seeks qualified immunity. Jensen v. … CHUNG 7 is available generally, we must determine whether [the officer] is entitled to it in this case,” i.e., whether the officer “violated a clearly established constitutional . . . right.”

Fahirri Dannah v. City of Grand Rapids

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 29, 2026

The district court rejected the officers’ qualified-immunity defense, reasoning that a jury could find that they violated Dannah’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … Page 4 Qualified immunity saves officers “the time, expense and risk of money-damages actions unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights.” Moore v.

Fields v. Abbott

652 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … due process right that Fields asserts was clearly established when the events in this case took place.

Prokey v. Watkins

942 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 19, 1991

The general rule of qualified immunity, set out in Harlow v. … Explaining the Harlow standard, the Court said that, [ujnless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the

Argueta v. Jaradi

94 F.4th 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 29, 2024

Because of the disputed facts, and the clearly established law preventing officers from using deadly force after incapacitating an individual, the officer was precluded from qualified immunity. Id. at 339. … are material to the application of qualified immunity.

Keyonte Ashford, Sr. v. Michael Raby

951 F.3d 798 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 2020

But the district court entered summary judgment for Raby based on qualified immunity. The court found that Raby’s use of force was legal and (even if it wasn’t) did not violate clearly established law. … In the end, nothing about Raby’s use of Ruger to seize Ashford violated clearly established law. Thus, Raby is entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.

Allen v. City & County of Honolulu

39 F.3d 936 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 28, 1994

immunity because he had not violated “clearly established” federal law. … The Supreme Court had clearly established an inmate’s right of access to a law library well before the time covered by Allen’s complaint. See Bounds v.

Cortez v. McCauley

478 F.3d 1108 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 19, 2007

permissible (violates clearly established law). … We held that, for purposes of qualified immunity, the plaintiff had not shown the violation of a clearly established right, given a lack of evidence of physical injury or “apparent physical damage to the plaintiff's wrists

Matthew Tarabochia v. Mickey Adkins

766 F.3d 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 9, 2014

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Clearly Established Although this suspicionless stop and search violated the Fourth Amendment, the WDFW officers are still entitled to qualified immunity on this claim if the Tarabochias’ rights were not clearly established

Michael Chrestman v. Metro Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 16, 2025

That this case comes to us at the motion-to-dismiss stage complicates our analysis of the clearly established prong of the officers’ qualified-immunity defense. … There, we explained that “dismissing for qualified immunity” on the clearly established prong “is sometimes difficult because the clearly established inquiry may turn on case-specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery

Atcherson v. Siebenmann

605 F.2d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 13, 1979

The Qualified Immunity Defense. … While we hold infra that Atcherson’s allegations of misconduct by her fellow probation officers qualify for constitutional protection, that conclusion was by no means “clearly established” at the time of the events in question

Grayson v. Ross

454 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2006

If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine whether the right was clearly established. … Sharum is entitled to qualified immunity. 27 b.

Wimbley v. Cashion

588 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2009

The court found genuine issues of material fact whether Cashion’s reasons for discharging Wimbley were pretextual, and denied qualified immunity. II. This court reviews de novo a denial of qualified immunity. … Cashion is not entitled to qualified immunity under part one of the Saucier inquiry. B. The second Saucier inquiry is whether the right was clearly established.

Ryan Steinhoff v. Matthew Malovrh

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2026

The district court further concluded that Detective Kowalczyk was entitled to qualified immunity because Steinhoff did not identify clearly established law “prohibiting the use of a takedown under the dynamic cir- cumstances … As for the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, a constitutional right is clearly established if existing prece- dent “place[s] the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Rivas-Villegas v.