Case law

Kevin Lackey v. L.T. Hurley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 2026

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment “when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which … To overcome a qualified-immunity defense at the summary-judgment stage, Lackey must show that (1) the officers “violated his constitutional rights, and (2) at the time of the violation, it was clearly established that the

Jeffrey Hughes v. Zane Duncan

93 F.4th 374 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 15, 2024

Through the Act, Tennessee established (with certain exceptions) a “presumption that an eligible inmate must be released on parole” upon the release eligibility date “or any subsequent parole hearing.” Tenn. … And even if some amount of discretion were required to qualify an act as a judicial function, today’s case is one in which the Board clearly exercised discretionary judgment.

Robert Shreve v. Franklin Cnty., Ohio

743 F.3d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 6, 2014

Qualified immunity Also at play in this case is the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “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 person

Vintilla v. City of Rocky River

96 F. App'x 274 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 2004

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Bird because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … In order to survive a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Saucier v.

Darell Chancellor v. Stephen Geelhood

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2026

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. … Whatever the wisdom of these opinions, it is certainly not clearly established that an officer could be liable in such circumstances.

Toni Mitchell v. Steve Conrad

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2026

Page 4 claims, and various state-law immunities—specifically, qualified official immunity, self-defense, and defense of others. … The district court granted Arnold qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims because plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that Arnold violated clearly established federal law.

Larry Cunningham v. David Blackwell

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 18, 2022

Because the administrators did not violate clearly established law, qualified immunity protects them from each claim. I. … The second prong of qualified immunity—clearly established law—does not implicate any such jurisdictional question.

Siggers-El v. Barlow

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2005

The Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that it was not clearly established that 1) a prisoner engages in protected conduct when he complains about a prison officer’s failure to … The only issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Defendant Barlow qualified immunity.

Rita Johnson v. City of Saginaw

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2020

Analysis Cabello and Stemple appeal the denial of qualified immunity.3 “This court reviews a district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified-immunity grounds de novo.” Quigley, 707 F.3d at 679. … “An assertion of qualified immunity may be overcome if the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.” United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 768 F.3d 464, 484-85 (6th Cir. 2014).

Megenity v. Stenger

27 F.3d 1120 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 1994

When an official is cloaked with absolute immunity, it is not necessary to determine whether the plaintiff has a clearly established legal right because, even if he does, no relief is forthcoming. 22 In the qualified immunity … analysis, however, we first look to see if the plaintiff has a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Ghandi v. Police Department of City of Detroit

747 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 1985

This immunity does not shield conduct that "transgresses a clearly established constitutional rule." Butz, 438 U.S. at 507 , 98 S.Ct. at 2911 . … Higgins. 35 Plaintiffs contend these federal agents are not entitled to qualified immunity for two reasons.

Bible Believers v. Wayne County

805 F.3d 228 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 28, 2015

Qualified Immunity Bible Believers’ damages claim against the officers in their individual capacities should fail under qualified immunity because there was, and still remains, no clearly established law pertaining to this … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask whether “a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged” and, if so, whether the right was “clearly established

Robinson v. Township of Redford

48 F. App'x 925 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2002

In addition to denying that the plaintiff has stated a claim under Section 1983, the defendants Diprima and Turner have asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Immunity In a civil action for monetary damages, a state actor may assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity for “discretionary acts that do not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional

Barajas v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections

21 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 17, 1994

immunity from civil suit in this action. … For a right to have been clearly established something more than a general constitutional right such as due process must have been recognized, that is, the right must have been established in a "more particularized" sense

David Holzemer v. City of Memphis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 15, 2010

She further argues that if the conversation were protected petitioning, she would be entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established. … For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Risbridger v. East Lansing

275 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 4, 2002

Three other circuits, on the other hand, have held that a right to refuse to identify oneself during a valid Terry stop was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. See Oliver v. … Because the right must have been clearly established at the time the officer acted in order to defeat the claim to qualified immunity, we do not discuss the reasoning of these cases. 6 The district court also relied on a

Leslie Fisher v. Randall Jordan

91 F.4th 419 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 2024

Begin with the question of whether qualified immunity shields the officers from Leslie’s federal constitutional claims. Overcoming an assertion of qualified immunity requires Leslie to make a two-part showing. … Governmental immunity, an affirmative defense under Michigan law, shares some similarities with the federal qualified immunity doctrine.

Bretton Westmoreland v. Butler Cnty.

29 F.4th 721 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 24, 2022

III Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … established constitutional right, or whether he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Baranski v. Fifteen Unknown Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms

452 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2006

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff alleges facts that, if true, establish that the official violated the plaintiff’s clearly established federal rights. Saucier v. … Groh in contrast contains a qualified immunity analysis and thus applied law clearly established at the time of the search.  Nos. 03-5582/5614 Baranski et al. v.

Taylor v. MI Dept Nat Res

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 2007

An officer is protected by qualified immunity provided his conduct did not run afoul of a right that is clearly established. … Nevertheless, Rose, in addition to denying a violation of the Fourth Amendment, also raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. The district court below found that Rose was entitled to qualified immunity.