Case law

Aska

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 23, 2026

Although it’s true that qualified immunity provides “ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,” it is clearly established that use of excessive force during an arrest is … City of Albuquerque, 813 F.3d 912, 929 n.9 (10th Cir. 2015) (“A circuit split will not satisfy the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.”) with Williams v.

Gerald L. Naekel v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

850 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Jun 28, 1988

Naekel neither demonstrated that any statute, regulation or collective bargaining agreement mandated his promotion to these levels during the interim period, nor presented facts that would establish a clear entitlement to … Conversely, promotion and back pay are inappropriate if the employee would have been only one of several qualified candidates for the promotion, but the factual record did not clearly establish that the employee would have

John Everett Miller v. Herman Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, and Gay Krull

728 F.2d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 22, 1984

generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A prisoner has a “clearly established” Eighth Amendment right to be reasonably protected from known dangers of attacks by fellow inmates. Cline v. Herman, 601 F.2d 374, 375 (8th Cir.1979); Gullatte v.

Armijo Ex Rel. Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson

601 F.3d 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 13, 2010

Qualified immunity “protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The qualified immunity inquiry has two elements: whether a constitutional violation occurred, and whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815-16 .

Tammy D. Scarbrough v. Bryant Myles, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2001

Because Hall violated no clearly established 8 Our inquiry in qualified-immunity analysis is whether the government actor's conduct violated clearly established law and not whether an arrestee's conduct … In addressing discretionary-function immunity and qualified immunity, our court has stated that "[u]nder both Alabama law and federal law, the core issue is whether a defendant violated clearly established law."

Johnson v. City of San Antonio

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 20, 2023

Jurisdiction & standard of review: “Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacities from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … This is the second step of the qualified-immunity inquiry. See Melton, 875 F.3d at 261 (observing that the plaintiff must show that “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct”).

Lisa Bergman v. Jeremy Howard

54 F.4th 950 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 2022

To qualify as “clearly established,” a principle must originate from an actual Supreme Court holding, not from its passing dicta. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). … Did the Michigan court’s refusal to provide this different type of state-funded expert qualify as an “unreasonable application” of Ake’s clearly established holding? We think not.

Kendoll

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 26, 2026

whether Gardner is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Having found that plaintiff’s constitutional rights were not violated, Gardner is also entitled to qualified immunity. See Cuevas v.

Haygood v. Johnson

70 F.3d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 4, 1995

clearly established federal law. … McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1497-98 & n. 32 (11th Cir.1991) (law can be "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes by decisions of U.S.

James Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board Gregory Spendlove State of Nevada

279 F.3d 873 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 4, 2002

If we had only the Supreme Court's precedents to guide us, we might also conclude that the right was not clearly established. … We think this is sufficient to clearly establish the right in our circuit.

Keshone Owens v. James Dzurenda

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 16, 2023

but did not address whether the law was clearly established). 3 has begun to run.” … We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand with instructions to grant Appellants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.

Wynn-Thomas v. Dempsey

District Court, D. Nebraska · Jul 20, 2022

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.

Jesse Richardson v. Sergeant Curtis Bonds

860 F.2d 1427 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 29, 1988

On February 29,1988, Judge Holder-man granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, based on the defense of qualified immunity. … established law.

KELLEY v. REYES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 2025

That is not how qualified immunity works. Qualified immunity is determined on a claim-by-claim basis, See Behrens v. … Pa, 2018) (“It would be strange to say that right X is clearly established just because right Y is clearly established and happens to prohibitthe same conduct.”), On this basis alone, reconsideration is improper

Nelson Edwards v. Michael Jolliff-Blake

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2018

  that  constitutional  right  was  clearly  established  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  violation.”  …   immunity);  Junkert,  610 F.3d at 370 (concluding officers were entitled to qualified  immunity based on  their reasonable  belief that  the  affidavit  established probable cause even though it left “much to be de‐ sired”)

Maurice Olivier v. Leroy Baca

913 F.3d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 2019

The burden is on the party contesting qualified immunity to show that a law was clearly established at the time of an alleged violation. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 197–98 (1984). … Finally, we reject Olivier’s argument that collateral estoppel should have prevented Baca from claiming qualified immunity.

Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi

District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 22, 2023

Qualified immunity applies where: (1) a federal right was violated, and (2) “the unlawfulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time.” Lawless, 63 F.4th at 67. … Courts may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering the clearly established prong. See Id.

Bustos v. Martini Club, Inc.

599 F.3d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 2010

wrong.” 14 We must determine if the Texas Supreme Court decision renders Meadours clearly wrong. … Lyford, 243 F.3d 185, 191 n.18 (5th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a municipality may be liable if a plaintiff states a claim against an official but the official is protected by qualified immunity). 51 Curley

Zhi Chen v. District of Columbia

808 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2011

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (holding that qualified immunity turns upon the “objective legal reasonableness of the officers’ action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly

D.A.R. v. R.E.L.

272 So. 3d 1030 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 7, 2018

This court has recognized the difference between absolute immunity, which defeats a suit at the outset, and qualified immunity, which depends on circumstances and motivations and often must be established by evidence at trial … are not always uniform in deciding whether absolute or qualified immunity applies."