Case law

Sherry Wilkerson v. City of Akron, Ohio

906 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2018

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability so long as they do not violate clearly established rights that a reasonable officer in their shoes would have recognized. Harlow v. … Danzy did not violate Thomas’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Citizens in Charge, Inc. v. Jon Husted

810 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 19, 2016

Public officials thus are eligible for qualified immunity if (1) they did not violate any constitutional guarantees or (2) the guarantee, even if violated, was not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct … Far from being clearly established, the plaintiffs’ rights under the Dormant Commerce Clause have not yet been established at all.

Hayden v. Green

640 F.3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 5, 2011

that right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case. … We reverse the district court’s order denying qualified immunity, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Holzemer v. City of Memphis

621 F.3d 512 · 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.

King v. Ambs

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

established and Officer Ambs would be entitled to qualified immunity. . . . … Ambs’s conduct vis-a-vis the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Dale D. Hoover v. Patricia Radabaugh

307 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 3, 2002

Clearly Established Constitutional Rights As noted above, the Sixth Circuit uses a two-part test to determine whether an official is protected by qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982): clearly established rights, for the purpose of qualified immunity, are “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Nicholas Roberson v. James Torres

770 F.3d 398 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2014

We have jurisdiction over this question on interlocutory review because it asks whether the facts, as alleged, indicate a violation of clearly established law, such that the denial of qualified immunity was appropriate. … , and (2) whether that right was clearly established.”

Logan Vanderhoef v. Maurice Dixon

938 F.3d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2019

Dixon Page 2 verdict, ruling that Dixon was entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law put him on notice that doing what he did was unconstitutional. … The rights violated must have been clearly established at the time—the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis. Bletz, 641 F.3d at 750. “Clearly established  No. 18-5993 Vanderhoef v.

Bessie Jones v. City of Cincinnati

736 F.3d 688 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 29, 2012

The district court denied qualified and statutory immunity on four claims. … For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and Ohio statutory immunity.

Leah Norton v. Heather Stille

526 F. App'x 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 13, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for discretionary functions performed in the course of duty so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Stille those rights were clearly established at the time of the incident, Stille is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Justin Parsons v. City of Pontiac

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. … But under § 1983, “an arresting agent is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information

Lance McNeal v. Gary Kott

590 F. App'x 566 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2014

To pierce the qualified immunity shield, McNeal must show (1) that Kott and LaLonde violated his constitutional rights and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time. See Leary, 528 F.3d at 441 . … Because McNeal cannot identify a violation of any “clearly established” right, Kott and LaLonde deserve qualified immunity.

Kennedy v. City of Villa Hills, Ky.

635 F.3d 210 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 24, 2011

In the context of qualified immunity, preexisting, clearly established law refers to “binding precedent from the Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit, the district court itself, or other circuits that is directly on point.” … To defeat Schutzman’s qualified- immunity defense, Kennedy must also demonstrate that his right to be free from retaliatory arrest in such a context was clearly established.

Spurlock v. Satterfield

167 F.3d 995 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 11, 1999

Thus, Satterfield is not entitled to qualified immunity for these alleged acts, because they violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. Y. … In rejecting Coarsey’s qualified immunity claim, the district court determined that ”[s]oIici-tation of false testimony for use in prosecuting an individual violates clearly established constitutional rights.”

Holly Schulkers v. Elizabeth Kammer

955 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 2020

A right is clearly established for purposes of overcoming the qualified immunity defense when existing precedent has “placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.”

Canary v. Osborn

211 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 3, 2000

It is the defendants’ burden to establish the the title of one of its substitute teachers, it voted to not renew existence of absolute legislative immunity. See Kamplain v. … as established by Bogan v.

Jermaine Sutton v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

700 F.3d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 28, 2012

the right was clearly established. … Still, taking the facts alleged in the complaint as true, Sutton’s constitutional rights were clearly established in this context and the court properly concluded that the qualified-immunity defense fails at this juncture

Edward Godawa v. David Byrd

798 F.3d 457 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 2015

Analysis Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity in cases seeking civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Clearly Established Right The qualified immunity analysis does not end with the determination that, under the facts alleged, Defendant’s use of force was objectively unreasonable.

Lisa Bergman v. Jeremy Howard

54 F.4th 950 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 2022

To qualify as “clearly established,” a principle must originate from an actual Supreme Court holding, not from its passing dicta. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). … Did the Michigan court’s refusal to provide this different type of state-funded expert qualify as an “unreasonable application” of Ake’s clearly established holding? We think not.

Ehsan Ouza v. City of Dearborn Heights, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 5, 2020

Regarding the clearly established prong, we have repeatedly recognized—and Defendants do not contest—that “freedom from excessively forceful or unduly tight handcuffing is a clearly established right for purposes of qualified … Clearly Established Right As discussed above, a right is clearly established for purposes of overcoming the qualified immunity defense when existing precedent has “placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond