Case law

Byron Black v. Ricky Bell

664 F.3d 81 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 15, 2011

A state-court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law “if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the gov *91 erning law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases” or “if the state court confronts a … established federal law.

Terranova v. New York

144 F. App'x 143 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 25, 2005

The District Court alternatively held that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Here, the complaints themselves do not establish the circumstances required as a predicate to a finding of qualified immunity.

Jennings v. Patton

635 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2011

and qualified immunity. … immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Curtis Wells, Jr. v. Javier Fuentes

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 22, 2025

At step two, qualified immunity allows the official to beat the plaintiff’s claim by showing that the asserted right was less than “clearly established” at the time of the conduct. Plumhoff v. … Because Wells did not have a clearly established right in 2020, the police are entitled to qualified immunity.

McWilliams v. Dinapoli

40 F.4th 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 19, 2022

. _________________________________ This appeal involves a defense of qualified immunity. … DiNapoli is not entitled to qualified immunity. Mr. DiNapoli urges qualified immunity even under the district court’s factual determinations.

Sean Stearns v. Cathy Dean

122 F.4th 699 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 4, 2024

“Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Therefore, qualified immunity applies unless Sergeant Spire violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of violation. See id.

James, Carrie, a Minor, by Elizabeth James, Next Friend v. T.G. Sadler

909 F.2d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 28, 1990

Qualified Immunity Although all defendants’ participation in the search and detention would *838 be sufficient to impose liability under § 1983, they may be immune. Redefined in Harlow v. … Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from liability if a reasonably competent law enforcement agent would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra.

Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority

124 F.3d 123 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 1997

To recover on that ground, of course, a plaintiff must still overcome the hurdle of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is unavailable where, as here, the action violates an accused’s clearly established constitutional rights, and no reasonably competent police officer could believe otherwise. Anderson v.

Eagon ex rel. Eagon v. City of Elk City

72 F.3d 1480 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 3, 1996

relevant law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … Therefore we are not persuaded that the exclusion of plaintiffs’ display violated clearly established public forum doctrine and affirm the district judge’s grant of qualified immunity to the individual defendants.

Shrum v. City of Coweta

449 F.3d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 8, 2006

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Once a defense of qualified immunity has been raised, we consider two questions: (1) whether the alleged conduct violated a constitutional right, and if so, (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the defendant

Ben Ortiz v. Robert C. Van Auken, and Wayne C. Spencer

887 F.2d 1366 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 27, 1989

Spencer is entitled to qualified immunity if his search did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The district court found that under clearly established law, probable cause did not exist to support the search warrant, and thus Spencer’s search violated Ortiz’s clearly established fourth amendment rights.

Watson v. University of Utah Medical Center

75 F.3d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 19, 1996

violated clearly established law. … Thus, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim.

Johnnie Russell v. Ryan Comstock

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

On appeal, Rus- sell again contends that the search was unconstitutional and that Powell lacked qualified immunity. We begin with the question of qualified immunity. … Here, for some of the same reasons described in Pearson, we conclude that it would be preferable to proceed directly to the qualified immunity analysis, and we consider only whether it was clearly established law that the

Jacob Cooper v. Lynn Brown

844 F.3d 517 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 27, 2016

SMITH, Circuit Judge: Officer Lynn Brown appeals the denial of his motion for summary judg- ment based on qualified immunity (“QI”). … QI provides government officials with immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v.

Fred Watson v. Eddie Boyd, III

119 F.4th 539 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 21, 2024

We consider whether arguable probable cause exists as “part of the resolution of qualified immunity’s second prong, the clearly established prong.” Id. at 901; see also id. … The defendants nonetheless assert that “even if Officer Boyd’s actions did violate Watson’s constitutional rights, Officer Boyd is still entitled to qualified immunity because those claimed rights were not ‘clearly established

Kenneth Rohrbough v. Luther Hall

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

After careful consideration, we conclude that the constitutional right involved in this case was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … In other words, although "[t]he right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right," Guite v.

Estate of Arrington Ex Rel. Arrington v. Michael

738 F.3d 599 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 24, 2013

He claims both qualified and statutory immunity. … Since his conduct falls squarely within the immunity established by the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005, 18 U.S.C. § 922(z)(3), we need not address his claim for qualified immunity and will reverse the decision of the District

Kloch v. Kohl

545 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 3, 2008

For government officials performing discretionary functions, qualified immunity provides a shield from civil damages except in cases in which they have violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Kloch has established the violation of a constitutional right and, if so, *607 whether that right was so clearly established that Bruning is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Fenn v. City of Truth or Consequences

983 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 29, 2020

The district court rejected Fenn’s claims on qualified immunity grounds, and we affirm. The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation occurred. … Defendants here raised a defense of qualified immunity, “which shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” T.D. v.

Lederman, Robert v. United States

291 F.3d 36 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 2002

qualified immunity. … Even if the tourist standard represents “clearly established” law, however, two factors convince us that the standard does not bar qualified immunity for the officers in this case.