Case law

LeRod Butler v. City of Detroit, Mich.

936 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2019

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … was clearly established.”

Charles H. Wilson Geraldine E. Wilson Raquel Wilson, Next Friend/mother of Valencia Snowden, a Minor v. Harry Layne, Deputy, United States Marshal, Supervisor for the Washington Area, Operation Gunsmoke Joseph L. Perkins James A. Olivo, and Raymond M. Kight, Sheriff, Montgomery County, Maryland John Doe, Unknown Sheriff's Deputies John Doe, Unknown U.S. Marshals United States of America Eric E. Runion Mark A. Collins Brian E. Roynestad, Charles H. Wilson Geraldine E. Wilson Raquel Wilson, Next Friend/mother of Valencia Snowden, a Minor v. Mark A. Collins Eric E. Runion Brian E. Roynestad, and Raymond M. Kight, Sheriff, Montgomery County, Maryland John Doe, Unknown Sheriff's Deputies Harry Layne, Deputy, United States Marshal, Supervisor for the Washington Area, Operation Gunsmoke John Doe, Unknown U.S. Marshals United States of America Joseph L. Perkins James A. Olivo

141 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 8, 1998

Furthermore, the district court refused to accept the officers' alternative argument that, at a minimum, they were entitled to qualified immunity because in April 1992, the law was not clearly established that permitting … Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821 , 826 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (en banc) (explaining that "the law can be 'clearly established' for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Glover v. Mabrey

384 F. App'x 763 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 28, 2010

It determined the ODOT defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights is a clearly established constitutional violation. … As the cases above indicate, freedom from retaliation for protected activity was clearly established when the defendants acted and they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Eric Andre v. Clayton County, Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2025

alleged a Fourth Amendment violation, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, in relevant part, the law was not clearly established. … A supervisor is entitled to qualified immunity if his alleged supervisory conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Ingram, 30 F.4th at 1256; see also Alcocer v.

Timothy Daryl Atkins v. John Gibson Lanning, Kenneth D. Fouts and Randall Craig Ruark

556 F.2d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 8, 1977

Hence the arresting officer is entitled to the qualified immunity defense of a good faith belief that his behavior was proper. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Pierson v. … But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Linda Mays v. H.G. Rhodes

255 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2001

Qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Second, the right allegedly violated must be clearly established. Id.

Antonio Smith v. John Kind

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 2025

But the Supreme Court has cautioned courts against reason- ing from broad principles when considering whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See Kisela, 584 U.S. at 104. … Sheriff of Cook County, 993 F.3d 981, 988 (7th Cir. 2021) (“The prong-two clearly-established-law assess- ment does not require a case with identical factual circum- stances, lest qualified immunity become absolute immun-

Howell v. Smith

853 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff demonstrates that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established” at the … established law.”

Anilao v. Spota

27 F.4th 855 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 9, 2022

"Qualified immunity protects a public official from liability for conduct that 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 1997) (denying qualified immunity to police officers where a reasonable jury could find they "violated the plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights by conspiring to

Antonio Smith v. John Kind

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 10, 2025

But the Supreme Court has cautioned courts against reason- ing from broad principles when considering whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See Kisela, 584 U.S. at 104. … Sheriff of Cook County, 993 F.3d 981, 988 (7th Cir. 2021) (“The prong-two clearly-established-law assess- ment does not require a case with identical factual circum- stances, lest qualified immunity become absolute immun-

Charles Kaminski v. Brad Coulter

865 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

were not “clearly established” at the time that the violation occurred. … With respect to Clinton’s qualified-immunity defense, the district court held that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights “were clearly established” and that thus qualified immunity was unavailable.

Avone Kukla v. Andrew D. Hulm Scott Brown

310 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 15, 2002

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Kukla had to assert a violation of a constitutional right, show the alleged right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and raise a genuine issue … In other words, qualified immunity shields Brown and Hulm from this lawsuit if they could *1049 have reasonably believed their conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed.

Rodgers v. Hawley

14 F. App'x 403 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2001

Thus, assuming Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood violated Irvin’s right to be free from retaliation for filing grievances, the question for purposes of qualified immunity is whether this violation involved a “clearly established … Because they did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of their actions, Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood are entitled to qualified immunity on Irvin’s retaliation claim. 6 IV For the reasons

Coones v. Board of County Commissioners

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 21, 2026

Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282, 1294 (10th Cir. 2022) (“[G]eneral statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.” … In particular, we focused in Cox on the plaintiff’s failure to adequately brief the question of clearly established law in response to the defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity. See id. at 1245–46.

Darius Gittens v. Superintendent Eugene S. Lefevre, Review Officer Lt. Kavanaugh, Correction Officer J. Gillen, Sergeant Goodrich

891 F.2d 38 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

Qualified Immunity Gittens’ claim was properly dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Pinder v. Johnson

54 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 1995

Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach. … The Supreme Court recognized, however, that a state official could never assert the defense of qualified immunity if the test of "clearly established law" were applied at that level of generality.

Jeffrey Davis v. Bim Lowers

132 F. App'x 302 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 2005

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).2 Qualified immunity protects from liability government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The burden then shifts to Davis to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate. The threshold inquiry is whether Davis’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Id.

Ramirez v. Granado

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 2025

’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.’” … ) “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Betty Grooms v. Judge Steven Privette

127 F.4th 730 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 4, 2025

Qualified immunity attaches if the defendants’ conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Billingsley v. St. … We start our consideration of the case with Grooms’s First Amendment claim, and, because we are satisfied that any law Bell or Privette violated was not clearly established, we hold that they enjoy qualified immunity with

KRL v. Estate of Moore

512 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 16, 2008

If yes, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Although our prior decision granted Riebe qualified immunity, it denied qualified immunity for Hall.