Case law

Sanchez v. Guzman

105 F.4th 1285 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 28, 2024

established law prong of the qualified-immunity test. … entitled to qualified immunity.

Dale D. Hoover v. Patricia Radabaugh

307 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 3, 2002

Clearly Established Constitutional Rights As noted above, the Sixth Circuit uses a two-part test to determine whether an official is protected by qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982): clearly established rights, for the purpose of qualified immunity, are “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Nicholas Roberson v. James Torres

770 F.3d 398 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2014

We have jurisdiction over this question on interlocutory review because it asks whether the facts, as alleged, indicate a violation of clearly established law, such that the denial of qualified immunity was appropriate. … , and (2) whether that right was clearly established.”

Makris v. Salem, NH

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 29, 1998

established under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments, the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Like the Aversa court, this court will bypass the issue of qualified immunity because current law forecloses the claim on the merits, making it unnecessary to engage in qualified immunity analysis. 3.

Sodaro v. City and County of Denver

District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 7, 2024

“Officers named in a § 1983 action may raise a defense of qualified immunity, which shields public officials . . . from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … Woodward, 912 F.3d 1278, 1299 (10th Cir. 2019) (holding all defendants, including supervisors, were entitled to qualified immunity where Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim failed at clearly established law prong).

David Carter v. Timothy Filbeck

821 F.3d 1310 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2016

An official like Filbeck, who asserts entitlement to qualified immunity, must first establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. … Overcoming the official’s qualified-immunity defense requires a plaintiff to establish both that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutionally protected right and that the right was clearly established at the time

Hamilton

District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 17, 2026

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. … Tucker, 28 F.4th 54, 64 (9th Cir. 2022) (“A government officer is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.”).

Diane Zion v. Samuel Nassan

556 F. App'x 103 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 30, 2014

Officials benefit from qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2080 (2011). … We must therefore determine whether it was clearly established that if the facts alleged by the plaintiffs are true, the officers’ actions were unconstitutional.

Cromer v. Brown

88 F.3d 1315 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 15, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity would provide Sheriff Brown, in his individual capacity, with a full defense to Cromer's § 1983 charges if Brown's conduct did not "violate clearly established statu- tory or constitutional … If the law supporting the allegedly violated rights was not clearly established, then immunity must lie.

Henderson v. DeRobertis

940 F.2d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 15, 1991

In its judgment, the district court said it could not “find the right plaintiffs asserted under the facts of this case to have been clearly established in 1982 to remove defendants’ qualified immunity.” … The district judge’s post-verdict finding of a lack of any clearly established constitutional right under the facts of this case was erroneous, as was his resulting grant of the protection of qualified immunity to the defendants

Correll Thomas v. C. Dillard

818 F.3d 864 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 5, 2016

Because it was not clearly established at the time, that the perceived domestic violence nature of an investigation was .insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, however, we hold Dillard is entitled to qualified immunity … He contends it was clearly established that Dillard’s conduct was unconstitutional when the events took place in September 2010, and.Dillard therefore is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Harlow v. Fitzgerald

457 U.S. 800 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 24, 1982

On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred. 32 If the law at that time was not clearly established … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily *819 should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Blankerhorn v. City of Orange

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2007

“Whether a right is ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity is an  BLANKENHORN v. … Saucier’s requirement that the plaintiff’s asserted right be clearly established “does not mean that the very action at issue must have been held unlaw- ful before qualified immunity is shed.” Wall v.

Michael Bearden v. Dudley Lemon

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Further, “[t]his court has . . . taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry . . . . Sexton 210 F.3d at 909 (quoting Boswell v. … “[I]f the law claimed to have been violated was clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily fails, ‘since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.’”

Springer v. Placer County

338 F. App'x 587 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 2009

We follow a two-pronged approach when analyzing qualified immunity. … Morris confronted that her conduct was unlawful under clearly established law.

Stoot v. City of Everett

582 F.3d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 18, 2009

We nonetheless affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on the Fourth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity, as the pertinent law was not clearly established at the time of the violations … Qualified Immunity Even if Jensen did violate Paul’s Fourth Amendment rights by seizing him without probable cause, Jensen may still be entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “ ‘[did] not violate clearly established

Watson v. Pearson

338 F. Supp. 3d 711 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 6, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Greer v. … Whether the Rights at Issue Were Clearly Established Although defendants violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right, they are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.

Gustafson v. Jones

117 F.3d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 1997

Public officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory *1021 or constitutional rights of which a … The court’s comments simply noted an undeniable fact about balancing tests, which is that they produce a wide gray area between the clearly legal and the clearly illegal, and the rules of qualified immunity require giving

Booher v. Wakefield

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … the right was clearly established.

Logan Vanderhoef v. Maurice Dixon

938 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2019

Dixon Page 2 verdict, ruling that Dixon was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law put him on notice that doing what he did was unconstitutional. … The rights violated must have been clearly established at the time—the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. Bletz, 641 F.3d at 750. “Clearly established  No. 18-5993 Vanderhoef v.