Case law

Tuttle v. City Of Oklahoma City

728 F.2d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 28, 1984

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-9 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (government officials "are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … immunity"); Pierson v.

Haynes v. Marshall

887 F.2d 700 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 12, 1989

"[T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been 'clearly established' " in a particularized sense, Anderson v. … They suggest, however, that there was no clearly established standard by which to measure whether they used excessive force, until 1986 when the Supreme Court announced its opinion in Whitley v.

Watkins v. City of Oakland

145 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 29, 1998

Although the use of excessive force in effecting an arrest is a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment, Watkins’ legal right cannot be so general as to allow him to “convert the rule of qualified immunity . … established for purposes of determining whether the officers have qualified immunity.

Ronald Kincade v. City Of Blue Springs, Missouri

64 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 12, 1995

"Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their 'conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Buzek v. … public employees can never be "clearly established."

Powell v. Shelton

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Oct 19, 2020

Defendants Brown and Shelton are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Hayek, 488 F.3d at 1054-55 (upholding qualified immunity for fatal shooting).

Patricia Thorsted Stephanie Thorsted v. Tim Kelly

858 F.2d 571 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 1988

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … First, they contend that qualified immunity was unavailable to Kelly because it was clearly established that the fourth amendment prohibited arrests without probable cause and the use of unreasonable force by police.

Cynthia Kernats v. Thomas O'Sullivan

35 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 16, 1994

We may not' deny O’Sullivan the shield of qualified immunity unless Kernats can establish that as of December 1,1991, O’Sullivan’s alleged conduct violated clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment. … Because the case law had not clearly established the unlawfulness of O’Sullivan’s alleged actions as of the time he acted, O’Sullivan was entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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”).

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.

Tenorio v. Pitzer

802 F.3d 1160 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 6, 2015

Qualified Immunity “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 … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Su *1164 preme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the 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