Case law

Lundblad v. Celeste

924 F.2d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 1991

be argued "to clearly establish" such a proposition under equal protection is Glicker v. … Thus the law was not clearly established on the issue, and the doctrine of official immunity shields the defendants from civil damages. 5 Accordingly, the opinion of the Court in Lundblad v.

Gable v. Lewis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 2000

Second, he argues that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because the “constitutional right [asserted] must be clearly established in a particularized sense” under Anderson v. … removed from the Ohio State Highway Patrol’s referral list.1 Hence the doctrine of official immunity is inapplicable, and And if the rule announced today was not clearly established the jury verdict should not be

Gussie Davis v. Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority

751 F.2d 180 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 28, 1984

Further, they assert that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Appellants’ argument on this issue is essentially that the trial court’s findings about Gandert’s involvement are clearly erroneous. … Nor is a qualified immunity defense available to Gandert. Under Harlow v.

Fisher v. Harden

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2005

the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … In 2001, the Court established a two-part test for determining whether qualified immunity applies. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

William E. Grant v. Louis J. Hollenbach and William C. Grimes

870 F.2d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 1989

Even if not entitled to absolute immunity, a prosecuting attorney may claim qualified immunity. 4 To distinguish between conduct entitled to absolute immunity and conduct entitled to qualified immunity, “the critical inquiry … But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Smith v. Williams-Ash

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2008

It resulted in a dismissal of the Smiths’ substantive due process claims, and an affirmance of the denial of qualified immunity, because judging the Complaint only, it set up a violation of the Smiths’ clearly established … In considering whether the social worker was entitled to qualified immunity, the Farley court held that the mother’s due process rights were clearly violated because her consent “was not voluntary during the entire time period

Vaughn v. United States Small Business Administration

82 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 1996

They did not argue that beating the plaintiff would not have violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. … Whitmore has argued, and we have agreed, that under the facts as alleged by Vaughn, he did not violate any of Vaughn's clearly established rights.

Bailey White v. Hamilton Cnty. Gov't

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2023

Riley has not shown that Goforth violated her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, so Goforth is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. First Amendment. … He is entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. *** We REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Goforth.

Jodi Hohman v. Maurice Eadie

894 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 5, 2018

3417’s waiver of sovereign immunity only covered claims by a “customer” as defined under the Act, and LLCs did not qualify as “customers.” … We accept any factual findings the district court made unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Davis v. United States, 499 F.3d 590, 593–94 (6th Cir. 2007).

Town of Smyrna, Tennessee v. Municipal Gas Authority of GA

723 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 19, 2013

made by the district court unless such findings are clearly erroneous. … Tennessee, too, has case law suggesting that the supervision, control, and funding of the entity, not merely the nomenclature, determines whether an entity qualifies for sovereign immunity.

Duzuan Lester v. Keith Roberts

986 F.3d 599 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 20, 2021

If a defendant relies on the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a defendant’s probable- cause finding violated clearly established law. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 589. … Page 12 violation at all,” let alone shown a violation of clearly established legal rules. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).

New Albany Main Street Props. v. Watco Co., LLC

75 F.4th 615 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 27, 2023

An entity seeking governmental immunity must have been created by (and be under the control of) a government that itself qualifies for immunity—that is, the entity must have an immune “parent[.]” … “Pure” Sovereign Immunity Bouvette initially argues that she should receive immunity without having to establish any additional requirements under the “pure” form of sovereign immunity. Comair, 295 S.W.3d at 94.

Sandra Krause v. Brian Jones

765 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2014

Qualified immunity shields officers from section 1983 constitutional torts so long as the officers did not violate the clearly established constitutional rights of the claimant. See Pearson v. … Qualified immunity protects the officers in this instance. Use of the flash bang.

Wesley King, (83-1705), (83-1774) v. H. Gary Wells and Richard Christiansen, (83-1705), (83-1774)

760 F.2d 89 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 1985

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow v. … The officials clearly are not entitled to immunity on the facts of this case.

Ashley Franklin v. Franklin Cnty., Ky.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2024

“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 … Because Franklin does not adequately allege a constitutional violation by Culbertson, and because addressing her claim is more straightforward on that basis, we need not reach the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity

David Hieber v. Oakland County, Mich.

136 F.4th 308 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 2025

Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability when their actions did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix v. … To defeat a qualified-immunity defense, Hieber must show: (1) that Jen violated his right to procedural due process, and (2) that the due-process right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Marla K. Kain Thomas Kain v. Gary L. Nesbitt (97-1210) Michael Powell (97-2068)

156 F.3d 669 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 1998

It would not be necessary to make a qualified immunity analysis. … Even after a qualified immunity claim is denied and discovery is completed, it may be appropriate for the trial judge to grant a summary judgment motion on grounds other than qualified immunity.

Bean v. Teague

556 F. App'x 483 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 2014

There are two criteria for analyzing qualified immunity: (1) whether “the facts that a plaintiff has ... shown (Rules 50, 56) make out a violation of a constitutional right”; and (2) “whether the right was clearly established … The record does not clearly establish that the Nonap-plicants knew they had to reapply for jobs they already had, or that they had the opportunity to do so.

Eric Draw Rodney Ricks v. City of Lincoln Park, William Kish, III Joseph Lavis Douglas Muncey Mohamed Nasser

491 F.3d 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

Only if a constitutional violation has occurred should a reviewing court proceed to determine whether the constitutional right in question was so clearly established at the time of the alleged violation that a reasonable … Accordingly, *557 further inquiries concerning qualified immunity are inappropriate in the instant case. Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 888 (6th Cir.2004).

Jerry Hammons v. Norfolk Southern Corporation

156 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 1998

In Wyatt , the Supreme Court held that private defendants charged with liability under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity, noting that the reasons for affording qualified immunity to government officials are not … are not public officials; and thus, not entitled to qualified immunity.