Case law

Martinez v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety

47 F. App'x 513 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 29, 2002

Consistent with that ruling, the court denied qualified immunity to Trooper Boyd on the excessive use of force claim. … “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 be as plaintiff maintains.”

Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines Co.

439 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 28, 2006

specific,” and therefore our rejection of qualified immunity in that case was “based on clearly and narrowly articulated Fourth Amendment principles.” … The district court granted qualified immunity to the officers on both claims.

Duaut A. Duamutef v. Melvin L. Hollins, Superintendent, and P. Almstead

297 F.3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 18, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … And because we conclude that there was no violation of a clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Allan Rodgers v. Daniel Knight

781 F.3d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 23, 2015

Municipalities do not enjoy qualified immunity, but a municipality “cannot exhibit fault rising to the level of deliberate indifference to a constitutional right when that right has not yet been clearly established.” … At a minimum, the act of retaining the guns did not violate clearly established law.

John Doe v. Univ. of Kentucky

860 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 2017

Defendant Simpson fails to show this procedure is inapplicable in cases involving qualified immunity.4 The concerns that support determining qualified immunity at the earliest stage of litigation are not present … As qualified immunity is “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” it becomes essentially meaningless if a case wrongfully goes to trial. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231.

Tatum v. Winslow

122 F. App'x 309 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2005

If this question is satisfied, then the court turns to the “qualified immunity inquiry,” and asks if the right was clearly established. Id. at 201-2. … The “Qualified Immunity Inquiry” The second step of the Saucier analysis requires that the defendant demonstrate that his misconduct was not a violation of clearly established law. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.

Kristine Williams v. MO Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Further, they assert that Williams failed to plausibly allege a violation of a clearly established right because the clearly established right is one to be protected from the known risks of suicide, and Loflin, Yount, and … , ‘whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.’”

Gelatt v. County of Broome, NY

811 F. Supp. 61 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 1993

Qualified immunity, on the other hand, shields the official from civil liability when, in performing a discretionary function, his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Robinson v. York

566 F.3d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 27, 2009

Defendants appeal from the denial of qualified immunity. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. … not affect whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

Estate of Armstrong Ex Rel. Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst

810 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 2016

to qualified immunity.” … A “qualified immunity analysis,” therefore, “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time

Curley v. Klem

499 F.3d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2007

step is whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” … The District Court clearly saw that problem in this case.

Mindy Kahle v. Deputy Tim Malone

477 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

If the right was not clearly established, then the officer is protected by qualified immunity. 1. … Qualified Immunity The second question in the qualified-immunity analysis requires us to consider whether the right that Malone allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Wallace v. City of Shelby

968 F. Supp. 1204 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 30, 1997

The Supreme Court held that, with respect to motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, “the judge may appropriately determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established … Plaintiffs assert that the use of excessive force is itself a violation of a clearly established constitutional right in “cases dealing with qualified immunity”. (Plaintiffs’ Opp. at 7).

Harvey Lucious Hall v. George Lombardi William Armontrout, Warden Donald Cline

996 F.2d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 11, 1993

In determining whether the appellants are protected by qualified immunity, we must first decide “the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which [Hall] complains violated clearly established law,” and then we … The test “focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official’s acts,” and the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established right because “a reasonably competent public official

Does v. Covington County School Board of Education

930 F. Supp. 554 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 2, 2003

However, the court then held that because this duty was not clearly established at that time, the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … The law, however, cannot be established by dicta. As stated by the Eleventh Circuit, [d]ieta is particularly -unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law. See, e.g., Jones v.

Westmoreland v. Sutherland

718 F. Supp. 2d 884 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 11, 2010

Qualified immunity cases, however, are not precisely on point. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, as well as from suit, so long as their official conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Margaret Byers v. Gordon Painter

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 17, 2026

The burden of establishing qualified immunity rests on the party seeking the shield of that immunity. Id. … “That means that we may grant qualified immunity [solely] on the ground that the purported right was not clearly established[.]” Id.

Salas v. Carpenter

980 F.2d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 8, 1992

IV As sheriff, Carpenter is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that he violated clearly established constitutional law. Anderson v. … Since qualified immunity turns on whether a defendant violated a clearly established right, a "necessary concomitant" to that decision is determining "whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation

Brady v. Dill

24 F. Supp. 2d 129 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 16, 1998

Qualified Immunity There are two parts to any qualified immunity analysis. First, it must be determined whether the right asserted by the plaintiffs was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … The reason cited was that “the focus in the usual Fourth Amendment qualified immunity analysis is not whether it is 'clearly established' that an unreasonable search and seizure would violate the Constitution but rather whether

Cruz v. Mississippi Department of Human Services

9 F. Supp. 3d 668 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 10, 2014

Qualified Immunity To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, and (2) a reasonable … person would have known of that clearly established right.