Case law

Doby v. Hickerson

120 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1997

Qualified Immunity 6 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official is immune from suit unless the complained of conduct violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In our view, the district court drew a reasonable line, and correctly concluded that this case did not present "extraordinary circumstances" that justify qualified immunity despite a violation of clearly established law.

Wagner v. City of Holyoke

404 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 13, 2005

Such immunity can be overcome only if the constitutional right at issue is clearly established and a reasonable official would have known that his actions violated that right. See Harlow v. … But qualified immunity requires that the general right be placed in a reasonably specific context; and given the facts surrounding Wagner's discipline, this is not a case in which reasonable officers, in light of clearly

James Bankhead v. Kurt Knickrehm

360 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 11, 2004

record] . . . support a claim of violation of clearly established law." … nature of our qualified-immunity jurisdiction does not prevent us from saying so.

Brandon Wheeler v. Mark Kidder

14 F.4th 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 29, 2021

-13- the purely legal questions of ‘whether a dispute identified by the district court is material’ and ‘whether the allegedly infringed federal right was clearly established.’” … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Jarovits v. Monroe County Children & Youth Services

345 F. App'x 784 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 21, 2009

The Bayer Court held that “under the ‘clearly established’ prong of the Saucier test, defendants should be afforded qualified immunity with respect to [the plaintiffs’ procedural due process] claim.” … qualified immunity.

Judith Alcocer v. Ashley Mills

906 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 9, 2018

An official who asserts entitlement to qualified immunity must first establish that she or he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. … Overcoming the official’s qualified-immunity defense requires a plaintiff to establish both that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutionally protected right and that the right was clearly established at the time

Weldeyohannes v. State of Washington

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 19, 2025

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct objectively violates clearly established rights. Harlow v. … impact whether the “unlawfulness . . . was clearly established at the time,” we reverse and remand the determinations of qualified immunity. 6 Id.

Patricia Scott v. Clay County, Tennessee Chinn Anderson Billy Pierce Michael Thompson

205 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2000

as their conduct does not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The procedure for evaluating claims of qualified immunity is tripartite: First, we determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established

Moore v. City of Desloge, Mo.

647 F.3d 841 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2011

The qualified immunity doctrine provides “that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, we may examine the two key prongs—whether a right was violated and whether the asserted right was clearly established—in either order. See Camreta v.

Higgins v. Penobscot County Sheriff's Department

446 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 14, 2006

immunity from the claims because they had not violated Higgins’ “clearly established” rights. … violated [the previously identified] clearly established right”); see also Riverdale Mills, 392 F.3d at 61 (“It is not always evident at the time an official takes an action that a clearly established right is involved.

Karen B. Masters v. Bobby G. Crouch

872 F.2d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 14, 1989

The defendants’ qualified immunity defense was based on their contention that at the time of the events complained of there was no “clearly established law” holding any of the defendants’ acts unconstitutional. … Thus, the district court denied the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. III. A. In Harlow v.

Berube v. Conley

506 F.3d 79 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 31, 2007

Qualified Immunity This circuit applies a three-part test for qualified immunity. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) the facts alleged show the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the contours of this right are ‘clearly established’ under then-existing

Hawatmeh v. City of Henderson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 7, 2025

CITYOF HENDERSON 3 qualified immunity because Joseph’s right to be free of excessive force during an active hostage situation was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which 12 HAWATMEH V.

Karl Huber v. Christopher Coulter

684 F. App'x 623 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2017

Ct. 3, 4 (2013) (police officer entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right). … The district court properly granted summary judgment on Huber’s excessive force claim because defendants’ limited use of force during the course of Huber’s arrest did not violate a clearly established right. See id.

Hydrick v. Hunter

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 28, 2006

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants also argued that the district court erred when it denied them qualified immunity. … Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context

Baptiste v. Penney Company, Inc.

147 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 30, 1998

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 6 Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional … Unless the plaintiff demonstrates both that the defendant's conduct violated a federal right and the right was clearly established, the defendant must be granted qualified immunity.

Victor Couzens v. City of Forest Park, Ohio

114 F.4th 571 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

established, so qualified immunity insulates the officers from liability. … So, even assuming that Couzens established constitutional violations here, those violations were not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. 8 Because Couzens sued Arns in his official

Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2015

Clearly established law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we ask whether it was clearly established in October 2010 that using deadly force against a person in circumstances like those here … established law, and Officer Carson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Malcolm Sheppard v. Visitors of VSU

993 F.3d 230 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 2, 2021

To determine whether qualified immunity shields Debose, we must consider whether (1) the facts “make out a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant … As to his due process claim, Debose is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established right to continued enrollment in higher education.

Huminski v. Corsones

396 F.3d 53 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 7, 2004

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages on account of them performance of discretionary official functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity with regard to this - claim because this right was clearly established at the time that the defendants issued the trespass notices.