Case law

LaToya Benton v. Seth Layton

139 F.4th 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 3, 2025

The court found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity under both the constitutional and clearly established prongs. Benton v. Layton, 675 F. Supp. 3d 606, 623 (E.D. Va. 2023). … Therefore, we hold that Defendants are independently entitled to qualified immunity under the clearly established prong. 9 IV.

David Greene and Starna Hill v. William B. Reeves, A/K/A Brad Reeves (95-5586) Robert G. Stephens (95-5644) Thomas J. Smith, III (95-5643)

80 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 8, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting in their official capacities are protected from being sued in their individual capacities for damages if their actions did not “violate clearly established … When a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, as the officials in this case did, the plaintiff must therefore 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish

Boles v. Neet

486 F.3d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 24, 2007

W hile a defendant charged with a constitutional violation receives qualified immunity when the right asserted is not clearly established, the right that has been established does not have to [be] so fact … Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established?

Fuqua v. Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office

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

Because the officers moved to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we must determine whether Fuqua plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Clearly Established Right To overcome qualified immunity, Fuqua must also show that the officers violated a clearly established right. Lincoln, 880 F.3d at 537.

Cady Ex Rel. Estate of Galambos v. Walsh

753 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 4, 2014

The three defendants now appeal, arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Finally, the defendants' objection to the district court's analysis of whether the constitutional rights in play were "clearly established" also does not transform this appeal into one that turns on a pure

Peter M. Garvie v. Charles O. Jackson and George W. Wheeler

845 F.2d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 27, 1988

“[Defendants] have qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ ‘rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly un *650 derstood … The relevant inquiry for this court, in light of defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, is whether Garvie’s asserted property interest was clearly established.

Christian Cutler v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ

767 F.3d 462 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 2014

Cutler insists that the district court correctly stated the clearly established law. Yet, the district court relies on a single case for establishing a clearly established right. See Cutler v. … Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269–71 (1964), for the clearly established law.

Anthony W. Barton v. Mark Norrod and Randy Pack, Individually

106 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 31, 1997

A determination of whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of the official’s action in light of clearly established law. Ibid. … Thus, even were we to disagree with Stockwell’s holding, it entitles Norrod to qualified immunity because it establishes that failure to comply with extradition procedures is not a clearly established right in this circuit

Byrd v. Harrell

48 F.4th 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2022

When a government official has asserted qualified immunity, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to ‘rebut the defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law … Ct. 548, 552 (2017) (noting that the purpose of qualified immunity’s clearly-established prong is to “giv[e] fair and clear warning to officers” about what conduct will expose them to liability).

Gonzalez v. City of Elgin

578 F.3d 526 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 20, 2009

Since the purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from guessing about constitutional developments at their peril, the plaintiffs have the burden of showing that the constitutional right was clearly established … it would not violate clearly established rights.”

Fisher v. Moore

73 F.4th 367 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2023

The school officials sought dismissal of the § 1983 claim on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing that the state-created danger doctrine was not clearly established in this circuit when the underlying events occurred. … “ha[s] not demonstrated a clearly established substantive due process right on the facts [she] allege[s].”14 The district court thus erred in denying qualified immunity to Appellants.

Anny Newman v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Appeal of Diana Burgin

884 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 28, 1989

Well-established First Circuit precedent limits our review in this case to the issue of qualified immunity; 2. … to qualified immunity on that claim; 3.

K.D., a Minor, Through His Mother, Michelle Deason Michelle Deason, Individually v. County of Crow Wing Andy Galles City of Brainerd Michael Bestul

434 F.3d 1051 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 18, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in civil lawsuits when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If a violation could be established on the facts alleged, we must then consider whether, in the specific context of the case, the right was clearly established. Id.

Kyle Ciminillo v. Thomas Streicher Daniel Hills Richard Janke, Gerald Knight City of Cincinnati

434 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2006

Even though Ciminillo alleges facts that, if true, would constitute a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, Knight may still be entitled to qualified immunity unless those rights were “clearly established” at the time … Given Yates, Adams, and Deorle, it was clearly established that shooting Ciminillo with a beanbag was objectively unreasonable. Thus, Knight is not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Wren v. Towe

130 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … There is a two-step analysis for determining the existence of qualified immunity. First, has a clearly established constitutional right been violated? Mangieri v.

Jennifer Johnson v. Joe Phillips

664 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 22, 2011

In determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and (2) whether that right was clearly established … Holloway, 316 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2003), this court held that an official acting outside the clearly established “scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983.”

Robert Anthony Carter v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

110 F.3d 1098 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 9, 1997

Therefore, the determination of the state court represented neither an unreasonable interpretation of the facts nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. V. … Mindful that we must honor this determination unless it constitutes an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law, we conclude that Carter’s confession was voluntary.

Powell v. Georgia Department of Human Resources

114 F.3d 1074 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 29, 1997

In order to strip the appellees of their qualified immunity defense, Powell must demonstrate that the appellees violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Because the appellees have invoked the defense of qualified immunity, Powell must prove a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Micah Jessop v. City of Fresno

936 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 4, 2019

Assuming that to be true, however, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established. … As the panel opinion acknowledges, the lack of clearly established law at the time of the incident compels the conclusion that the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Kimberlin, Brett C. v. Quinlan, Michael J.

207 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 28, 1999

qualified immunity issue. … to qualified immunity.