Case law

Modica v. Taylor

465 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2006

The qualified immunity determination is a two-step inquiry. First, the court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a violation of a clearly established right. Id. … Whether Humphrey is entitled to qualified immunity Humphrey argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because the FMLA was not clearly established at the time Modica’s employment was terminated.

Klaassen v. University of Kansas School of Medicine

84 F. Supp. 3d 1228 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 3, 2015

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff establishes (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the … Whether plaintiff has alleged a violation of his clearly established constitutional rights to overcome the Individual Defendants’ qualified immunity defense is an issue of law. Brown v.

Callahan v. Unified Govt of Wyandotte

806 F.3d 1022 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 16, 2015

We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the basis that the law was not clearly established at the time of the arrests in question. … Because qualified immunity establishes “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” Lewis v.

Toevs v. Reid

646 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2011

Toevs did not receive meaningful periodic reviews, we conclude that defendants are entitled to judgment based on qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 2005 through 2009 that the review process was … And because the law was not clearly established, defendants are entitled to judgment based on qualified immunity. C.

Michaels v. City of Vermillion

539 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 22, 2008

He is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if this particular right is not ‘clearly established.’ … Manigold, the Sixth Circuit denied qualified immunity, holding that a jury could find that the officer's use of a taser violated the suspect’s “clearly established Fourth Amendment right.”

Collinson v. Gott

895 F.2d 994 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 13, 1990

qualified immunity, Judge Wilkinson on the basis of absolute immunity, while Judge Butzner, dissenting, would hold Gott not entitled to immunity by summary judgment. … The grants of summary judgment by reason of qualified immunity to officers Bowen and Nutter, respectively, are affirmed.

Crystal Weimer v. County of Fayette

972 F.3d 177 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 25, 2020

“the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Vernon responds that she is entitled to qualified immunity because, “at the time of the allegations, no clearly established [law] existed to put [her] on notice” that, as a prosecutor, her failure to intervene in the police

Zamora v. City of Belen

229 F.R.D. 225 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 4, 2005

Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 645-46 (10th Cir. 1988)(“The plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.”). … If the Court grants the motion, the Court’s judgment would establish Valdez’ absolute immunity and/or qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Burdette Block v. Adam Dupic

758 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 15, 2014

Qualified immunity protects public officials from damage suits if their challenged conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Even so, Officer Dupic is entitled to qualified immunity if his affidavit, supplemented by the omitted facts, still supports a probable cause finding.

Eileen Tubbesing v. John Fox Arnold

742 F.2d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 22, 1984

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … We conclude that the “clearly established” test has not been met, that the Board members meet the requirements of qualified immunity, and, therefore, are entitled to summary judgment on Tubbesing’s claims for money damages

May v. Grothaus

10 F. App'x 811 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · May 11, 2001

Jok v. City of Burlington

96 F.4th 291 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 15, 2024

Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Corrow was entitled to qualified immunity. … If, however, the district court denies qualified immunity because of a dispute over material facts, the appellant must also establish one of the following: (1) that the parties have agreed to “stipulated facts,” (2) that

Templeton v. Jarmillo

28 F.4th 618 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2022

Because the officers invoked a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to Templeton to show the officers violated his clearly established rights. Cass v. … Overcoming qualified immunity requires showing clearly established law supporting the plaintiff’s claim, and that demands “that the legal principle clearly prohibit the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances

Tekle ex rel. Tekle v. United States

457 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 11, 2006

“[I]n the absence of binding precedent, we ‘look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits … The officer argued that he was entitled to immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that it was an unconstitutional use of force for a police officer to point a gun at a resident’s head during a lawful

Price v. Akaka

3 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity As the Supreme Court stated in Harlow v. … First of all, an Attorney General’s opinion cannot by itself establish “clearly established law.” See Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau v.

Barry Eric Floyd v. Richard J. Farrell, Jr., Individually and in His Capacity as a Trooper for the New Hampshire State Police

765 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 19, 1985

The question before us is, therefore, whether under the standard of qualified immunity established by Harlow , the facts establishing Farrell’s qualified immunity were sufficiently complete and un-controverted to require … His qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made.

Romero v. Kitsap County

931 F.2d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 1991

However, when qualified immunity is at stake, a court must first determine whether the law has been clearly established. Tribble, 860 F.2d at 324 . … By extension, the qualified immunity defense extends to conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory, constitutional, or treaty-based rights. .

Strauch v. Demskie

892 F. Supp. 503 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 28, 1995

Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified immunity is necessary to enable government officials to act without fear of later being held personally liable for violating a right that was not clearly established.

Gerald Novak v. William Federspiel

140 F.4th 815 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 20, 2025

For the federal claims, the court held that qualified immunity protected Federspiel in his personal capacity and that, in any event, Novak and Wenzel had not established constitutional violations. … was clearly established at the time.”

William Carter v. Kenny Huterson

831 F.3d 1104 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 2016

Finally, the court ruled that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Carter failed to state facts demonstrating the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for discretionary acts that do not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have