Case law

Medina v. Cram

252 F.3d 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

An order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established law. … officer violated a clearly established right.

Mayfield v. Bethards

826 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2016

Whether a plaintiff has sufficiently “alleged a violation of his clearly established constitutional rights to overcome [the defendant’s] defense of qualified immunity is an issue of law reviewable on interlocutory appeal … Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Thomas v.

Johnny Tlapanco v. Jonathan Elges

969 F.3d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 12, 2020

These violations were of clearly established law. Elges, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity on these federal claims. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236–37 (2009) (permitting federal courts to skip to the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis).

Ruta Marie Kahn v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

20 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 1994

II The Board, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, may establish standards to guide the exercise of discretion in granting waivers of deportation under § 212(c) “as long as [they] are rationally related to the statutory … Nonetheless, it was clearly a significant one.

Sockwell v. Phelps

20 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 10, 1994

established in the opinions rendered by Judge Johnson in Washington v. … We further hold that Phelps and Blackburn are not protected under qualified immunity, due to their knowing and intentional participation in a general policy of racial segregation 5 The Tenth Circuit specifically

Kaufman v. Higgs

697 F.3d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 2012

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Accordingly, to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity in a summary judgment motion, a plaintiff must properly allege a deprivation of a constitutional right and must further show that the constitutional right was clearly

Kathleen Hayes v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 28, 2026

This is “[b]ecause qualified immunity pro- tects the public officer from the expense and distraction of having to stand trial when the conduct in question did not vi- olate clearly established law.” Bayon v. … Although we decide the issue at the second step of the qualified immunity analysis (did case law clearly establish Lyons would be violating Hayes’s constitutional right?)

Burke v. Pitts

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 4, 2025

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In Tenorio, we affirmed the denial of a summary judgment motion seeking qualified immunity because the evidence supported a violation of clearly established law. 802 F.3d at 1161.

Youngbey v. March

676 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 17, 2012

They further claim that, even if their actions are determined to be unconstitutional, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. … Conclusion Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because neither their no-knock entry of appellees’ home nor their nighttime search violated “clearly established law.”

Jordan v. Carter

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 4, 2005

With such a sequential approach, the law continues to develop and become more “clearly established” over time. … Clearly Established Right The second stage of the qualified immunity inquiry requires us to determine whether the right we have identified was “‘reasonably well settled at the time of the challenged conduct,’” Mihos

Angie Chesser, A.K.A. Angie Kimball v. Amos Sparks, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Haralson County Commissioner

248 F.3d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 18, 2000

violation of a clearly established constitutional right." … Evaluating the defense of qualified immunity involves a two step inquiry: first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right; and, second, whether a reasonable government official would

Mullenix v. Luna

25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 555 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 9, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' … In Brosseau , which also involved the shooting of a suspect fleeing by car, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity on the ground that the officer had violated the clearly established rule, set forth in Tennessee v.

Key v. Grayson

179 F.3d 996 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 1999

Overview The defense of qualified immunity grants government officials engaged in discretionary activities immunity from individual liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory … established prior to 1996 in order to preclude a finding of qualified immunity.

Catherine Gossman v. Dr. David T. Allen Chris Gorman Irv Maze Darryl Owens and Harvey Sloane, Louisville & Jefferson County Board of Health

950 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1991

A government official enjoys qualified immunity if his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal “statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The court’s only holding directly relating to the “clearly established” issue was that “[t]he legal rights of citizens under the first amendment to the United States Constitution were clearly established at the time plaintiff

Individuals for Responsible Government, Inc. v. Washoe County

522 U.S. 966 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 10, 1997

National Black Police Association, Inc. v. Richard W. Velde

712 F.2d 569 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 1983

The liability standard announced in Harlow entitles appellees to qualified immunity on summary judgment unless such clear duties existed. … Prior to Harlow, summary judgment on questions of qualified immunity generally required both subjective and objective determinations.

White v. Lucero

135 F.4th 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Clearly Established Law Because courts “are free to decide which prong to address first” in the two- prong qualified immunity inquiry, we choose to begin with whether clearly established law exists that applies to … First, “[d]istrict court cases lack the precedential weight necessary to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.” Crane v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 15 F.4th 1296, 1306 (10th Cir. 2021).

Francisco v. Long

132 F.3d 42 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 31, 1997

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (establishing the qualified immunity defense). … In other words, once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of identifying a clearly established right, of which a reasonable person would have known, and alleging facts showing the defendant

Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley

988 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

II QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review a district court’s denial of a qualified immunity defense de novo. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1989). … When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question

Thompson v. City of Monticello, Ark.

894 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 6, 2018

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known.” Id. … “A clearly established right is one that is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official 2 The district court did not reach the second-prong of the qualified immunity analysis, finding that it was “