Case law

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.

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

Jennifer Kilnapp v. City of Cleveland, Ohio

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 18, 2026

Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis requires us to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Kilnapp therefore cannot prevail on the clearly-established-law prong of qualified immunity, and Gannon is entitled to qualified immunity on Kilnapp’s Fourth Amendment claim. E.

Manetta v. Macomb County Enforcement Team

141 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal laws unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Thus, Kaiser is entitled to qualified immunity from the section 1983 claims of Manetta and Swieczkowski unless, when he acted, the law established the contours of the right allegedly violated so clearly that a reasonable

James Schreiber v. City of Grand Rapids

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 4, 2010

Qualified Immunity Both Schreiber’s warrantless-entry and excessive-force claims must be analyzed under the framework of the qualified-immunity doctrine. … We also conclude that Schreiber’s right to be free from excessive force was clearly established, so that Moe is not entitled to qualified immunity.6 The relevant question here is “whether it would be clear to a reasonable

Summe v. Kenton County Clerk's Office

604 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 10, 2010

Qualified Immunity The district court further ruled that Eldridge’s dismissal of Summe was protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary duties from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Kellie Farris v. Oakland County, Mich.

96 F.4th 956 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 22, 2024

In this qualified-immunity context, moreover, plaintiffs must show that an officer violated a “clearly established” right against excessive force. Rivas-Villegas, 595 U.S. at 5 (quoting White v. … Legally, Farris identifies no case that clearly establishes her proposed rule. So she cannot seek to impose it on the officers in this qualified-immunity context. See Rivas-Villegas, 595 U.S. at 6.

Soliday v. Miami County

55 F.3d 1158 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 1995

The key issue in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Upon remand, the district court found that the defendants were protected by qualified immunity. This Court affirmed, stating that the rights articulated in Brother-ton I were not clearly established until that decision.

Martin v. Heideman

106 F.3d 1308 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 1997

The authorities I found--First of all, the test for qualified immunity is[,] is the right clearly established, and the specific right and specific thing the officer did, was it clear to the officer--should have been, using … established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity was improper." 371 The reviewing court in Walton affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to the officer based on qualified immunity because: 372

Davis v. Holly

835 F.2d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

In my mind, this interest was "clearly established" well before 1979 when the events at issue in this case occurred, and accordingly qualified immunity was improperly granted. 41 In order for a constitutional right to be … established." 44 I agree with the reasoning of the Tenth Circuit and would deny qualified immunity in this case.

Connie Overstreet v. Ontonagon County

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 8, 2026

But this recent change does not affect this case if we resolve it by jumping to qualified immunity’s second (clearly established) prong. See Lawler, 93 F.4th at 925, 927. … So qualified immunity protects Rantala on this claim. See id.

Walker v. Norris

917 F.2d 1449 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 1990

Bibb, 840 F.2d 349, 351 (6th Cir.1988) (”[T]his court [the Sixth Circuit] can ‘clearly establish’ even a newly recognized constitutional right[.]”). … Jackson, 845 F.2d 647, 649 (6th Cir.1988), we find that the district court properly refused to submit the qualified immunity issue to the jury. .

Laborers' Int'l Union of N.A. v. Terease Neff

29 F.4th 325 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 23, 2022

Qualified immunity protects the administrators from these claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Gean v. … But even if state officials breaching a contract somehow violate the Takings Clause, no precedent clearly establishes the point.

McKinley v. Mansfield

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 2005

But as a pre-cursor to the Harlow qualified immunity analysis, a court must first determine whether any constitutional violation occurred, let alone the violation of a clearly established right. E.g., Saucier v. … The dissent suggests that Officer Fortney should be entitled to qualified immunity because we have established a “new right of action.”

Ethel L. Pusey v. City of Youngstown Maureen Cronin

11 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 1994

Plaintiff clearly rests the establishment of her liberty interests on Ohio law. Initially, we must determine whether the Ohio crime victim’s statute establishes a federally enforceable procedural right. … However, an official sued in her personal capacity may assert the common law defenses of absolute and qualified immunity.

Brian Midkiff Monica Midkiff v. Adams County Regional Water District

409 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 24, 2005

Qualified Immunity Under well-established qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … The Magistrate Judge recommended that defendant Brian Ast, manager of the Water District, enjoys qualified immunity here because the Midkiffs have not sufficiently alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or

Johnida W. Barnes v. Byron R. Winchell

105 F.3d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 1997

See Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 528 n. 9, *1115 105 S.Ct. at 2816 n. 9 (stating that in that case “the appealable [immunity] issue is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established … Seitz, 38 F.3d 264, 271 (6th Cir.1994) (applying both absolute and qualified immunity principles to a judge’s actions). 2 .

Vanyorous v. Burmeister

96 F. App'x 312 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 2004

immunity from suit. … Consequently, the district court ruled that the individual defendants were at least entitled to qualified immunity from suit on the excessive force claims.

Renee Soper, a Minor, by Her Mother and Next Friend, Lina Soper Lina Soper, Individually v. Christine A. Hoben Michelle Harmala Robert Shaw James H. Doyle Huron Valley School District Board of Education of the Huron Valley School District, Jointly and Severally

195 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 2, 1999

Michigan Dep't of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 491 (6th Cir. 1995). 33 A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity from suit for civil damages unless his actions violate "clearly … This is clearly not a case of prejudice to the defendants due to lack of notice about the nature of the suit against them -- both parties briefed qualified immunity to the district court and to this court.

James Rieves v. Smyrna, Tenn.

67 F.4th 856 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 16, 2023

Similarly meritless is the County defendants’ argument that Fitzhugh is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governments officials from personal civil liability as long as their conduct does not violate an individual’s clearly established rights. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).