Case law

David Ivey v. Audrain County, Missouri

968 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 4, 2020

The court today concludes the defendant jail employees are entitled to qualified immunity because it believes Ivey’s father failed to establish a violation of clearly established law related to his son’s death while in custody … Such an approach is required “even when . . . a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the [qualified immunity] standard.” Id.

Mary Stewart v. City of Euclid

970 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 14, 2020

Further, even if Rhodes violated Stewart’s constitutional rights, it held those rights were not clearly established as required to deny qualified immunity. … established and that, therefore, Rhodes is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Wigginton v. The University of Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 10, 2021

Examining the defense of qualified immunity requires a determination as to whether Defendants’ conduct violated “clearly established law.” … Berliner, 770 F.3d 196, 205 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Few issues related to qualified immunity have caused more ink to be spilled than whether a particular right has been clearly established.”).

Irma Woodward v. City of Tucson

870 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 15, 2017

We also reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity regarding the seizure of and use of force on Duncklee, as it was not clearly established that the Defendants’ actions violated a constitutional right. … As we have said, the qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff establish that a constitutional right of his was violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established

Dawn E. Carter, Now Known as Dawn E. Trojaovich v. Randall Simpson, Now Known as Dudley Randall R. Simpson

328 F.3d 948 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 13, 2003

The district court granted summary judgment for Simpson, concluding that Simpson had immunity for any alleged negligent conduct and that Simpson’s conduct could qualify as neither willful and wanton nor a deprivation of substantive … Illinois case law is unclear on what conduct by a driver of an emergency vehicle may qualify as willful and wanton.

Oona, R.-S.-, a Minor, by Kate S., Her Guardian, Kate S. And Ken R. v. Patricia McCaffrey Gerald Hill Ronald Lundy

143 F.3d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 1998

A school counselor appealed from an order denying him qualified immunity on the ground that his alleged conduct in failing to take steps to stop sexual harassment violated clearly established rights under Title IX. … We said that in reviewing a denial of qualified immunity, this court has jurisdiction “ ‘only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated ... clearly established [law.]’” Petaluma, 54 F.3d at 1449 (quoting Pelletier v.

Stickley v. SUTHERLY

667 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 30, 2009

Alternative *667 ly, Sutherly and Fauber maintain that they have qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established federal law, and the Town maintains that neither Suth-erly nor Fauber had the final policymaking … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Roger Poole v. City of Shreveport

691 F.3d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2012

Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 169 (5th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (explaining that an arrestee had a clearly established right to be free from excessive force and that it was clearly established that the force officers could use in … Within this qualified immunity inquiry, the parties dispute only whether Stalnaker’s and Creighton’s respective uses of force were clearly excessive and clearly unreasonable. These inquiries are often intertwined.

Mockeridge v. Harvey

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 7, 2024

established Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent to divest these Government Official Defendants of qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232–36 (2009) (affirming the two prongs of qualified immunity—a violation of the constitution and clearly established law—but allowing courts to analyze these prongs in whichever order they choose

Lee v. GTE Florida, Inc.

226 F.3d 1249 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 13, 2000

None of Lee’s proffered evidence established that she was more qualified than Hines, let alone so clearly more qualified for the position than Hines that a reasonable juror could infer discriminatory intent from the comparison … Since Lee’s evidence at trial fell far short of establishing that she was clearly more qualified for the position than Hines, Lee did not meet her burden of establishing that Shaffer’s proffered reason for denying her

Deppe v. Sovinski

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 18, 2025

[may] be specific enough to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances to overcome qualified immunity, even in the total absence of case[]law.” … of qualified immunity.”); Dolihite v.

Hoffschneider v. Marshall

District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 14, 2023

See also Cummings, 913 F.3d at 1242 (declining to “reach the first prong of the qualified-immunity analysis” where the plaintiffs “failed to identify clearly- established law” as required under the second qualified immunity … Hoffschneider has failed to meet his burden on the “clearly established” qualified immunity prong, and therefore Defendants Marshall and Pound are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

O'Neal Johnson v. Ryan Edwards

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2026

In the context of qualified immunity, if probable cause is arguable, a plaintiff cannot show an officer violated her clearly established right to be free from arrest. … Merits aside, Johnson cannot overcome qualified immun- ity because he has not shown he had a clearly established right to be free from the unbelted car ride he suffered.

Johnson, et.al. v. Williamson

195 F.3d 1208 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 1, 1999

Williamson also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs had failed to allege that they had violated clearly established law. … As a result, they maintain, the district court erred in concluding that the law was clearly established and in rejecting their arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Bryant v. CEO DeKalb Co.

575 F.3d 1281 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 2009

clearly established under § 1981. … Furthermore, even if Drew’s misguided interpretation of the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test was correct, it is well-established in this circuit that claims for retaliation are cognizable pursuant

Peggy Sigley v. City of Parma Heights

437 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 10, 2006

Qualified Immunity On appeal, Defendants argue, and the dissent asserts, that even if a constitutional violation occurred, Officer Mockler is entitled to qualified immunity. We disagree. … Qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Simpson v. Hines

903 F.2d 400 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 1990

Qualified Immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when a reasonable officer could have believed that the challenged conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

McLean v. Mississippi State University

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 14, 2020

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (Sth Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.”) (quoting Mace y. … Qualified immunity calls for a bifurcated test in which the court must first determine (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established

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