Case 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

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.

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

Loughlin v. Tweed

310 F.R.D. 323 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 1, 2015

Tweed contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Tweed responds that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time.

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

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).

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.

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?

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.

Culberson v. Clay County

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 10, 2023

Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, [the officer] violated a clearly established constitutional … Villarreal, 628 F.3d 209, 211-12 (5th Cir. 2010) (“the plaintiff has the burden to rebut this [qualified immunity] defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law”

Day v. Idaho Transportation Department

Idaho Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2023

Auth., 124 Idaho 450, 463, 860 P.2d 653, 666 (1993) (“[E]ven though the district 14 court did not explicitly address the qualified immunity issue in responding to Worrell … ’s motions to dismiss and post-trial motions, it is implicit in the court’s rulings that it rejected Worrell’s properly raised immunity claims.”).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bartlett v. City of Winona

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Sep 11, 2024

on violations of clearly established law. … This court is far from alone in expressing concerns regarding the qualified immunity doctrine, in particular its “clearly established” prong.

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.