Case law

Teetz v. Stepien

142 F.4th 705 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 23, 2025

Qualified immunity cases in particular “illustrate the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the standard.” Id. at 657. … Because the constitutional violation is clearly established, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. V.

Elenor Joyce Whittaker Gay v. William F. Turner, Lawrence Bax, Liz Hamlin, Ted Haslag, Carolyn Bax

994 F.2d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 27, 1993

We further conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Count IV. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when sued personally unless they have violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Deary v. Three Un-Named Police Officers

746 F.2d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 12, 1984

predicate to the qualified immunity determination, was for the jury on the record of this case. … Finally, we conclude that FBI Agent Patton did not violate state or federal law, thus affording him the protection of qualified immunity established under controlling precedents.

Hydrick v. Hunter

669 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

Qualified immunity is only an immunity from a suit for money damages, and does not provide immunity from a suit seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. See Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. … HUNTER pleaded insufficient facts to establish “plausible” claims against the Defendants in their individual capacities and the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I.

Heather De Mian v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

86 F.4th 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 16, 2023

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity de novo. Aldridge, 75 F.4th at 898. … Officer Olsten gets qualified immunity unless (1) the facts demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly -3- established at

Christoper P. v. Marcus

915 F.2d 794 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 27, 1990

Qualified Immunity for Violations of the EAHCA 18 "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Accordingly, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to the protection of qualified immunity. 24 On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the applicability of the EAHCA to the Family School was "clearly established"

Jesse Lyles v. City of Barling

181 F.3d 914 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 28, 1999

The qualified immunity defense shields government officials from civil liability in circumstances where "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … A law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity from suit for actions that are objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law and the facts known by the officer at the time of his actions.

Abigail Marbut v. Matthew Phillips

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 22, 2026

The district court granted summary judgment for the officers based on qualified immunity. Because the officers did not violate Marbut’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, we affirm. … So the question for us is whether the officers violated her clearly established constitutional rights.

Gardner v. Vespiia

252 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 11, 2001

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Vespia, stating that he was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established whether a "conviction" under § 922(g)(9) is defined by state or … Accordingly, Vespia is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions.5 The decision of the district court is hereby affirmed. 5 In rendering judgment against Gardner on grounds of qualified immunity, the

PAULETTE SMITH V. EDWARD AGDEPPA

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 30, 2022

court’s decision denying qualified immunity, which was clearly wrong). … But this standard is obviously far, far too general to create clearly established law for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity.

Estate of Bing Ex Rel. Bing v. City of Whitehall

456 F.3d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

clearly established must be considered on a more specific level.” … Bing’s right not to endure a second flashbang device in these circumstances, however, was not “clearly established.” The Supreme Court has not clearly established such a right, nor has this court or other circuits.

Shelby Welter v. Janice Wilson

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 29, 2025

Detective Wilson is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) she violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of her conduct was “clearly established” at the time. … Under the clearly established prong that is enough. Waters, 921 F.3d at 736.

Hoskins v. Withers

92 F.4th 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 20, 2024

We decide whether Trooper Withers is entitled to qualified immunity based on a two-part test. Because Trooper Withers had asserted qualified immunity, Mr. … We concluded that the officer had qualified immunity based on the absence of any case law that would clearly establish a First Amendment violation from the retaliatory use of force.

Corey Hughes v. Michael Rodriguez

31 F.4th 1211 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 21, 2022

The panel further held that Officer Michael Rodriguez was not entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 as to the claimed post-handcuff beating and dog-biting because it was clearly established law that beating a handcuffed … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is proper unless the plaintiff can establish that “the [officers’] specific conduct violated clearly established federal law.” Sharp v.

Moore v. Lamarque

242 F. App'x 458 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 2007

The purpose of the qualified immunity rule is to protect from suit government officials who make reasonable mistakes in the course of duty. … Whether a right is clearly established must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, rather than as a broad general proposition. Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Joseph Ferguson v. Ryan McDonough

13 F.4th 574 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2021

Ct. 577, 590 (2018) (“The ‘clearly established’ standard also requires that the legal principle clearly prohibit the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances before him.”); Gant, 924 F.3d at 451 (“Officer Hartman … claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his ac- tions did not violate Gant’s constitutional rights and, even if they did, those rights were not clearly established on or before August 23, 2015.

Skoly v. McKee

103 F.4th 74 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 31, 2024

The district court correctly found that, regardless, the Governor would be entitled to qualified immunity because Skoly had no clearly established right to continue to practice while violating the vaccine mandate. … Rivera-Sánchez, 715 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2013) ("[T]he appellant's claim falters on the 'clearly established' prong of the qualified immunity test.

Theodore Bolick v. Joel Anderson

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 13, 2026

to qualified immunity. … The official invoking qualified immunity bears the burden to show that the right was not clearly established. Henry v. Purnell, 501 F.3d 374, 378 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2007).

Golino v. City of New Haven

950 F.2d 864 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 3, 1991

The Merits of the Qualified Immunity Defense 19 The qualified or "good faith" immunity enjoyed by police officers shields them from personal liability for damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The right not to be arrested or prosecuted without probable cause has, of course, long been a clearly established constitutional right.

Carl Nelson v. George Jashurek, Patrolman

109 F.3d 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 18, 1997

immunity. … Of course, Jashurek is free to renew his motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in the proceedings on the remand in the district court. III.