Case law

Albert Hansen v. Ryan Aper

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2018

App’x 479, 484 (6th Cir. 2015) (reviewing a denial of qualified immunity to determine whether a prisoner’s constitutional right was clearly established). … Indisputably, the right to be free from “excessively forceful handcuffing” is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001); see also O’Malley v.

Smith v. Crockett

District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 3, 2023

Wang’s conclusion that an inmate’s First Amendment right to a diet conforming to his sincerely held religious beliefs was clearly established since at least 2002; in other words, it is clearly established Tenth Circuit … City of Las Cruces, 584 F.3d 888, 895–902 (10th Cir. 2009) (qualified immunity unavailable at summary judgment where the plaintiff’s version of the facts, if believed, would constitute a violation of a clearly established

Bowling v. Rector

584 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 26, 2009

clearly established law.” … “Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate if the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.” Id.

NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 3, 2023

Emmons, 139 S.Ct. 500, 27 503 (2019). 1 district framed the relevant qualified immunity question as “whether it was clearly 2 established that an officer … immunity on the ground that the law is not clearly 16 established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Bloem v. Unknown Department of the Interior Employees

920 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2013

“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 … Herman, 983 F.2d 107, 110 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding a “clearly established liberty interest” for qualified-immunity purposes where trial court had issued order suspending defendant’s prison sentence, and finding it “not

Brenda Cook v. Amos Taylor

Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Feb 22, 2021

“Waiver is a matter of law where the material facts and circumstances are undisputed or clearly established.” Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Hampton, 227 So. 3d 1138, 1141 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Bott v. … 9 judgment based upon a qualified immunity affirmative defense.

Flatford v. City of Monroe

17 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 22, 1994

To withstand a motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish: (1) an alleged violation which implicates clearly established law, and (2) facts sufficient to create a genuine … require action in situations not implicating clearly established rights.

Zia Trust Co. Ex Rel. Causey v. Montoya

597 F.3d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 9, 2010

However, we review -5- summary judgment motions raising qualified immunity differently because “qualified immunity shields government officials . . . from liability for damages … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to

Hardy v. Rabie

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 4, 2025

To overcome qualified immunity, a right must be clearly established such that “a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Truman, 1 F.4th at 1235 (citation omitted). … In my view, Deputy DeHerrera’s alleged violation of the Constitution wouldn’t have been clearly established; and the absence of a clearly established violation would trigger qualified immunity.

Tasha Williamson v. City of National City

23 F.4th 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 24, 2022

Qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages under Section 1983 “unless the officer[] violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Monzon v. … Thus, the qualified-immunity analysis involves two prongs: (1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right “was clearly established at the time of the events at issue.” Id.

Heitschmidt v. City of Houston

161 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1998

clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, and (2) allege conduct that is objectively unreasonable. … With regard to his unlawful detention claim, Heitschmidt asserts his clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizure of his person, a right which he maintains includes the clearly established right to be free

Ortiz v. Torgenson

District Court, D. Utah · Apr 30, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory … Even when government officials violate the law, qualified immunity shields them from damages liability unless the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established.”

DeNieva v. Reyes

966 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

Thus, as we stated in Romero , [t]he qualified immunity test necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so ‘clearly established … Did DeNieva Identify a Specific Right, and Was it Clearly Established? We can consider the first two prongs of the Romero test together, as both raise the question of Reyes’ violation of a clearly established right.

McGrath v. Scott

250 F. Supp. 2d 1218 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 12, 2003

In Harlow , the Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity as whether the official violated “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Here, State Defendants asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Therefore, the burden of persuasion shifted to Plaintiff to establish a violation of a clearly established federal right.

Roth v. Guzman

650 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 13, 2011

Qualified immunity protects government officials and employees performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Relying on the Eleventh Circuit decision in Collier affirming the denial of qualified immunity to state officials for disclosures under the DPPA, the district court concluded that the plain language of the DPPA clearly established

Seal Tite Corp. v. Bressi

312 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 1998

could be afforded on the basis of qualified, rather than absolute, privilege or immunity. … The individual defendants are entitled at least to the protection of qualified immunity, even if the absolute immunity afforded for legislative acts is deemed inapplicable.

Patrick Stockdale v. Kim Helper

979 F.3d 498 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 30, 2020

But because her conduct did not violate any clearly established law, qualified immunity protects her. We affirm in part and reverse in part. I. … Qualified Immunity. That leaves Helper’s qualified immunity defense against Stockdale and Dunning’s § 1983 claim.

Deezia v. City of Lincoln

350 F. Supp. 3d 868 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Oct 29, 2018

. ----, 136 S.Ct. 305 , 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) (specificity in defining clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes "is especially important in the Fourth Amendment context, where the Court has recognized … For qualified immunity purposes, the question then becomes whether the law at the time of the incident clearly established that the level of force used in this context constituted excessive force. Ehlers v.

Eaton v. Estabrook

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 9, 2025

immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that his actions were unconstitutional. … Qualified immunity applies unless (1) the official violated the plaintiff’s statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that “right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ricciuti v.

Wilbert Glover v. R. Paul

78 F.4th 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 24, 2023

On appeal, Paul maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless a plaintiff shows that the official’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. See Harlow v.