Case law

Renee Fazica v. Zachary Jordan

926 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2019

Individual Liability Normally, we review a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity in two steps: (1) determining whether the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) deciding whether that right was clearly … established at the time of the incident.

Gregory v. City of Louisville

444 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 4, 2006

of clearly established law." … The Supreme Court noted that when the issue on qualified immunity turned on whether the facts, as alleged, constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional law, the issue on appeal was sufficiently separate from

Cleamtee Garner, Father and Next-Of-Kin of Edward Eugene Garner, a Deceased Minor v. Memphis Police Department City of Memphis, Tennessee

8 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 7, 1993

[The City] was not at the time following a clearly established unlawful or unconstitutional policy.” Id. at 1137 . Carter’s retroactivity analysis is clearly not relevant to the instant case. In Tennessee v. … Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment asserts that there remain no genuine issues of material fact, and that the law clearly establishes defendants’ liability.

Sarah Gable v. Ronald G. Lewis Kenneth T. Woehrmyer, Roger Hannay

201 F.3d 769 · 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. … We also conclude that the law was clearly established that the “public concern” test does not apply to plaintiffs petitioning activity.

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.

The Ecclesiastical Order Of The Ism Of Am, Inc. v. Joseph Chasin

845 F.2d 113 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 1988

clearly established law and the information the official possessed. 483 U.S. at ----, 107 S.Ct. at 3040 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 532 . … standard of qualified immunity, the district court correctly found that none of the actions taken by the defendants violated any of the plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

Douglas C. Hopkins v. City of Westland, a Municipal Corporation and Officer Scott Fetner, Jointly and Severally

21 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 1994

At the time of plaintiff's arrest, it was clearly established that an arrest must be supported by probable cause. … It was also clearly established that probable cause, "a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity," Illinois v.

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

Summers v. Leis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 21, 2004

This ruling was on qualified immunity involves a claim of right that is effectively a denial of qualified immunity. … was required to determine - prior to permitting further discovery - whether [Plaintiff’s] complaint alleged the violation of a constitutional right at all, and if so, whether that right was clearly established at the

Curry v. Saginaw

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 16, 2008

clearly established. … The third inquiry impacts the analysis when despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and so should still enjoy qualified immunity.

Spier v. Elsaesser

93 F. App'x 704 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2004

the law was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … of the Constitution; and (2) whether the right was clearly established.

John Doe v. Miami Univ.

882 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

and (2) whether that right was clearly established.’” … All of these rights were clearly established in the fall of 2014.

Alspaugh v. McConnell

643 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 23, 2011

Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 886 (6th Cir. 2004), that a district court must address the question of qualified immunity prior to discovery, we did not hold that any time qualified immunity is asserted it is proper to dismiss on that … Rather, we merely instructed the district court to scrutinize the plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether a violation of a clearly established constitutional right was alleged. Id. In Adams v.

Christopher Bey v. Adam Falk

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 31, 2019

“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. Hughes, 138 S. … was clearly established.”

Fitzgerald v. Bureau of Workers Compensation

24 F. App'x 387 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2001

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages as long as “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … that those facts, if proved, will overcome the defense of qualified immunity”).

Mario Pliego v. Amanda Hayes

843 F.3d 226 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 2016

Furthermore, these findings of fact clearly establish that Turkish courts can properly adjudicate the underlying custody dispute and protect the child. … These factual findings are not clearly erroneous, as established above.

Wayne v. Village of Sebring

36 F.3d 517 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 1994

“A public official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct in performing dis *531 cretionary functions so long as that conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Thus, they do not suffice to clearly establish the right in question. F.

Louis T. Bauer v. Betty D. Montgomery

215 F.3d 656 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 2000

The only issue before the district court was Montgomery’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Alternatively, Montgomery claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity. Because the district court did not reach this issue, this Court cannot consider the qualified immunity defense.

James J. Mayo v. MacOmb County, Michigan and Deputy Brossard

183 F.3d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields someone such as Deputy Brossard “ ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Mayo to show that Brossard was not entitled to qualified immunity. See Wegener v. Covington, 933 F.2d 390, 392 (6th Cir.1991).

Elizabeth Jane Hall v. United States of America

704 F.2d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 1983

Court refined the limits of qualified, good faith immunity, placing "[r]eliance on the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law." … Under this approach summary judgment should issue on the grounds of qualified, good faith immunity if the official's conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights at the time the challenged