Case law

Myers v. Oklahoma County Board Of County Commissioners

151 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 20, 1998

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (stating that an official is protected by qualified immunity if the officer's actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established legal … Although individual officers may receive the protection of qualified immunity, "municipalities enjoy no such shield." Watson, 857 F.2d at 697 .

Kathleen Hayes v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 28, 2026

This is “[b]ecause qualified immunity pro- tects the public officer from the expense and distraction of having to stand trial when the conduct in question did not vi- olate clearly established law.” Bayon v. … Although we decide the issue at the second step of the qualified immunity analysis (did case law clearly establish Lyons would be violating Hayes’s constitutional right?)

Aisenberg v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office

325 F. Supp. 2d 1366 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 16, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a prosecutor’s discretionary acts that violate no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … See Gonzalez, 325 F.3d at 1233-34 (qualified immunity requires dismissal of an action if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”).

Wyno v. Lowndes County

305 Ga. 523 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Feb 18, 2019

As a result, there has developed what has become known as qualified immunity or official immunity for public officials and employees. … a means of varying that immunity by legislative act.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. State

200 Ariz. 174 · Arizona Supreme Court · May 30, 2001

The processing of a particular application in accordance with established procedures, however, does not involve the determination of fundamental governmental policy and therefore enjoys only qualified immunity under A.R.S … Second, section 12-820.02.5 accords qualified immunity to the issuance of any license “for which absolute immunity is not provided pursuant to § 12-820.01.”

Burke v. Pitts

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

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In Tenorio, we affirmed the denial of a summary judgment motion seeking qualified immunity because the evidence supported a violation of clearly established law. 802 F.3d at 1161.

National Black Police Association, Inc. v. Richard W. Velde

712 F.2d 569 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 1983

The liability standard announced in Harlow entitles appellees to qualified immunity on summary judgment unless such clear duties existed. … Prior to Harlow, summary judgment on questions of qualified immunity generally required both subjective and objective determinations.

Catherine Gossman v. Dr. David T. Allen Chris Gorman Irv Maze Darryl Owens and Harvey Sloane, Louisville & Jefferson County Board of Health

950 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1991

A government official enjoys qualified immunity if his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal “statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The court’s only holding directly relating to the “clearly established” issue was that “[t]he legal rights of citizens under the first amendment to the United States Constitution were clearly established at the time plaintiff

Angie Chesser, A.K.A. Angie Kimball v. Amos Sparks, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Haralson County Commissioner

248 F.3d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 18, 2000

violation of a clearly established constitutional right." … Evaluating the defense of qualified immunity involves a two step inquiry: first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right; and, second, whether a reasonable government official would

White v. Lucero

135 F.4th 1213 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 2025

Clearly Established Law Because courts “are free to decide which prong to address first” in the two- prong qualified immunity inquiry, we choose to begin with whether clearly established law exists that applies to … First, “[d]istrict court cases lack the precedential weight necessary to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.” Crane v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 15 F.4th 1296, 1306 (10th Cir. 2021).

Jordan v. Carter

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 4, 2005

With such a sequential approach, the law continues to develop and become more “clearly established” over time. … Clearly Established Right The second stage of the qualified immunity inquiry requires us to determine whether the right we have identified was “‘reasonably well settled at the time of the challenged conduct,’” Mihos

Key v. Grayson

179 F.3d 996 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 1999

Overview The defense of qualified immunity grants government officials engaged in discretionary activities immunity from individual liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory … established prior to 1996 in order to preclude a finding of qualified immunity.

Mullenix v. Luna

25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 555 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 9, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' … In Brosseau , which also involved the shooting of a suspect fleeing by car, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity on the ground that the officer had violated the clearly established rule, set forth in Tennessee v.

Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley

988 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

II QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review a district court’s denial of a qualified immunity defense de novo. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1989). … When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question

Curtis Sherrod v. Dr. Arthur Johnson

667 F.3d 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2012

clearly established law. … Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual public officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Individuals for Responsible Government, Inc. v. Washoe County

522 U.S. 966 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 10, 1997

Wright v. Whiddon

951 F.2d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 14, 1992

“clearly established” legal right. … In order for a right to be clearly established and defeat an official’s claim to qualified immunity, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Cowboys for Life v. Sampson

983 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 21, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity is well established. … immunity because the plaintiffs “right to be free from a retaliatory investigation [was] not clearly established.”

Vosburgh v. Bourassa

2008 DNH 133 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Aug 5, 2008

So, where this type of constitutional violation is established there is no room for qualified immunity. … Malicious and sadistic use of force is always in violation of clearly established law, so qualified immunity affords no protections to defendants 20  in Eighth Amendment excessive

Bagley v. Guillen

90 F.4th 799 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2024

Ho, Circuit Judge: Two established principles of law govern this qualified immunity appeal. … The district court granted qualified immunity with respect to the unlawful arrest and illegal detention claims. But the court denied qualified immunity as to Bagley’s excessive force claim.