Case law

Tara Cartier Donald Coates v. Paul D. Lussier, Individually and in His Official Capacity

955 F.2d 841 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 5, 1992

the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 344-45 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1097-98 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). *844 Thus, even where the law and the scope of permissible official conduct are clearly established, the defense of qualified immunity will protect

Joseph Meadows v. City of Walker, Mich.

46 F.4th 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2022

We nonetheless held that qualified immunity was warranted because the rights were not clearly established where the officers could perceive at least some resistance, id. at 850, or the struggle was in progress. … Still, we granted qualified immunity because it was not “clearly established” that the officers’ use of force was excessive given that Stanfield “could reasonably have been perceived to be resisting.” Id. at 850.

Diaz-Bigio v. Santini

652 F.3d 45 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 29, 2011

A right is clearly established and immunity will not issue only if "every 'reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.'" … '" for qualified immunity purposes.

Unseld Nance, Sr. v. Erik Sammis

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 10, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 when their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The right of Farrow and Nance to be free from the use of deadly force was clearly established in June 2007.

Z. J. v. Kansas City Brd of Police Comm

931 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

The "clearly established" requirement of qualified immunity provides officers with ample room for honest mistakes, but the SWAT team officers' conduct falls outside even this generous standard. … We do not decide whether the detectives' decision violated the Fourth Amendment but instead conclude they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.

Pearson v. Callahan

555 U.S. 223 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jan 21, 2009

Clause, but then granted the defendants qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the relevant time. … Because the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct in this case was not clearly established, petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity.

Williams v. Department of Veteran Affairs

879 F. Supp. 578 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 29, 1995

There, the Supreme Court held that government actors protected by qualified immunity are immune from suit if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … established” as to preclude the individual defendants from claiming qualified immunity for the alleged actions.

Nicole Maddox v. Babette Stephens

727 F.3d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 2013

A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: “(1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle within … Stephens is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that Stephens’ actions were so conscience shocking as to violate Maddox’s liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of

Badia v. City of Miami

133 F.3d 1443 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 1998

In order to defeat Lee's claimed entitlement to qualified immunity, Badia was required to proffer evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to her, demonstrates that Lee violated clearly established statutory or … Lee's alleged actions did not violate clearly established First Amendment rights, and qualified immunity protects Lee from Badia's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment claim.

Kovacic v. Villarreal

628 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 2010

Qualified immunity was created to insulate government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … No such constitutional law was then, or is now, clearly established.

Arrington v. Dickerson

915 F. Supp. 1503 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 7, 1995

Under the qualified immunity defense, the defendants are immune from liability if [the plaintiff’s] complaint fails to state a violation of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable … The purpose of qualified immunity is to shield government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials and liability if their conduct does not violate " 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Keith v. Koerner

843 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 9, 2016

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … Keith possessed a clearly established constitutional right and presented evidence of a constitutional violation by Warden Koerner, summary judgment was inappropriate on qualified- immunity grounds.

Arthur Jackson v. W.I. Hollowell

714 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 22, 1983

Qualified Immunity Longstanding precedent establishes the appellants’ entitlement to the benefit of the qualified immunity defense previously recognized in Scheuer v. … Although the defendants have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to the protections of qualified immunity, a separate inquiry must be made to determine whether Jackson adequately demonstrated that his clearly established

Tyrone Cameron v. City of Des Moines

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 26, 2026

Officer Meunsaveng has invoked qualified immunity. … See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236 (noting that courts can analyze qualified immunity by first addressing whether an at-issue right was clearly established).

MacDonald v. Town of Eastham

745 F.3d 8 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 12, 2014

"[Q]ualified 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 person would have … Given the nature of the qualified immunity inquiry, it is sufficient to hold — as we do in this opinion — that because these questions are not resolved by clearly established law, the officers who entered and searched

Koch v. Rugg

221 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

clearly established law.” … violate clearly established law.”).

Moniz v. City of Fort Lauderdale

145 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1998

immunity unless Moniz can demonstrate that appellants should have known, based on clearly established law as of 1993 and 1995, the years in which the challenged promotions were awarded, that their use of race as a factor … We conclude, therefore, that, having violated no clearly established law, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Christopher Payne v. Fred Britten

749 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 16, 2014

The district court’s order did not decide whether the officials were entitled to qualified immunity or assess whether any alleged violations were of clearly established federal law. … Courts may ask only whether the facts as alleged plausibly state a claim and whether that claim asserts a violation of a clearly established right.

Peterson v. Jensen

371 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 8, 2004

A right is “clearly established” if Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit case law exists on point or if the “clearly established weight of authority from other circuits” found a constitutional violation from similar actions. … Shejheur no longer occupied the apartment, the search as alleged violated clearly established constitutional law.

Jordan v. Cosey

434 So. 2d 386 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jun 27, 1983

V, § 5 provides for a right of direct appeal to this Court from a judgment declaring a statute unconstitutional. [2] La.C.C. art. 1493 established the forced portion at one-third for one child, one-half for two children and