Case law

Anthony Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio

33 F.4th 296 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 2022

Qualified immunity protects state officers against section 1983 claims unless (1) “they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time” … So to prevail on his claim, Novak must show it was clearly established that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. Because he hasn’t done so, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

DeBoer v. Pennington

206 F.3d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 17, 2000

If the right is not clearly established, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 698 (9th Cir.1997). … Clearly Established Law Having identified the right at issue, we must determine whether it was clearly established before January 31, 1995.

Simon v. City of New York

247 F. Supp. 3d 285 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 30, 2017

Instead, “[e]ven if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects, . ’.. an- officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the legality of the action … An officer may also establish qualified immunity by showing that, “notwithstanding a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his actions did not violate this

Warren Bass v. Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, Raymond Broaddus, Earl D. Moore, James J. Plescia, Gloria Butler-Conrad, and John Glasheen

976 F.2d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 24, 1992

McAvoy, Judge, denying their motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity in connection with their rejection of requests in 1989 and 1990 by plaintiff Warren Bass, a prisoner, for meals prepared in accordance … At least as early as 1975, it was established that prison officials must provide a prisoner a diet that is consistent with his religious scruples. See Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.1975).

Ready v. Heckart

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 11, 2022

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.”) (quoting Mace v. … Qualified immunity calls for a bifurcated test in which the court must first determine (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established

Thomas v. Roberts

323 F.3d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 10, 2003

The "clear" requirement stems from the fact that the purpose of qualified immunity is to protect government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability when their actions violate no "clearly established … Plaintiffs insist that "consensus or persuasive authority" from other circuits may create clearly established law.

Walters v. Grossheim

990 F.2d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 1, 1993

they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … That finding is not clearly erroneous.

Kimberly Bennett v. Kentucky Community & Technical College System

Kentucky Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2025

It is well established that “an immunity defense is an appealable issue by interlocutory appeal.” Baker v. Fields, 543 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Ky. 2018). … Our Court subsequently concluded that orders denying qualified official immunity and legislative immunity are also immediately appealable. Meinhart v. Louisville Metro Gov’t, 627 S.W.3d 824, 830 (Ky. 2021); Stivers v.

Matthews v. Bergdorf

889 F.3d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 8, 2018

“In conducting [a] qualified immunity analysis, . . . courts must consider . . . whether each defendant’s alleged conduct violated the plaintiff’s clearly established rights.” … [violated] plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights . . . .

Edward Chevallier v. Deputy Sheriff Joel Hand

722 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 18, 2013

In response, Deputies Hand and Floyd asserted qualified immunity. … Deputy Hand argues that such a requirement was not clearly established at the time of Chevallier's arrest.

Shinault v. Hawks

782 F.3d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 22, 2015

Yet, we ultimately affirm on the basis of qualified immunity because the constitutional obligation was not clearly established at the time of the conduct. 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Lester Shinault was incarcerated … the right was not clearly established at the time of conduct.

Tomberlin v. Clark

1 F. Supp. 3d 1213 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Feb 19, 2014

Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity has also been raised. … State and local officials are entitled to qualified immunity if they act within the discretion of their office and their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional law. Harlow v.

McFarland v. Childers

212 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 10, 2000

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The question of whether a rule of law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes is a legal one for this court to determine by examining applicable precedent rather than the experience of individual officers.

Chism v. Washington State

661 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 25, 2011

We also conclude that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because the Chisms’ right to not be searched and arrested as a result of judicial deception was clearly established at the time Gardner prepared and … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields the officers from liability “insofar as their conduct d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Helen J. Guercio v. George Brody (88-2013) and John Feikens (89-1137)

911 F.2d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 1990

[was] clearly established law at the time of Ms. Guercio’s firing.” … “[Defendants] have qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ ‘rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that

Rasul v. Myers

563 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 24, 2009

immunity shields the defendants because the asserted rights were not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ detention. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability to the extent their alleged misconduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Martha Stringer v. County of Bucks

141 F.4th 76 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 18, 2025

established, as required for qualified immunity. … Stringer’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Opening Br. 25, 28 (emphasis added). But that conflates the two prongs of qualified immunity.

Edward J. Miller v. Dr. Robert Schoenen and Dr. David White

75 F.3d 1305 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 15, 1996

As we discussed in Reece , however, the qualified-immunity question involves more than merely determining whether the law governing a plaintiff’s claim is “clearly established.” … That is the “clearly established” law.

Conforti v. City of Franklin

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 13, 2021

In evaluating a law enforcement officer's entitlement to qualified immunity, a court asks whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time … The defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity “because there is no clearly established law indicating that officers may be held liable for failing to intervene in the alleged conduct when they directly

Wiles

District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 3, 2026

Kan. 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 … his right to seek judicial review under the KJRA was not “clearly established.”22 Accordingly, Dr. Rezac is entitled to qualified immunity on Dr. Wiles’s individual-capacity claim against her. Dr.