Manning v. City of Tulsa, et al.

Circuit 10Mar 30, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 45/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Reversed in Part

The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Officer Betty Shelby, holding that viewing the facts in the estate’s favor a jury could find she used unconstitutional deadly force against an unarmed, non-threatening suspect. It affirmed dismissal of the Monell municipal-liability claims for failure to state a claim, and remanded for further proceedings on state-law claims.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Which party bears the burden of showing that a constitutional right was clearly established in qualified-immunity litigation at the summary-judgment stage.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 10(this circuit)

Burden rests on the plaintiff to prove the right was clearly established.

Burden rests on the defendant official to show the right was not clearly established.

Conflict Summary

Some circuits place the burden on the plaintiff to show the right was clearly established, while other circuits require the defendant official to prove the absence of clearly established law. The Tenth Circuit re-affirmed that the burden rests on the plaintiff, expressly acknowledging that other circuits assign that burden to the defendant, thereby creating an acknowledged circuit split.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Michael Manning, as Administrator of the Estate of Terence Crutcher, Sr.
Appellee:City of Tulsa; Officer Betty Jo Shelby

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; SolomonSimmonsLaw
Appellee:Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, L.L.P. (City of Tulsa); Wood, Puhl & Wood, P.L.L.C. (Betty Shelby)