Case law

Mary Granger v. Alfred Marek, Gerald Kobey, Larry Griffith, Burton Roth

583 F.2d 781 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 9, 1978

agents the standard of qualified immunity enunciated by the Supreme Court last term in Butz v. … absolute immunity and qualified immunity for public officers should turn on the role and function of the official and not on whether the alleged wrong sounds in tort or under the Constitution.

Iesha Mitchell v. City of Benton Harbor, Mich.

137 F.4th 420 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2025

Lastly, the City officials argue that qualified immunity shields their actions because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the right they assert is clearly established. … To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Steve Black v. Dixie Consumer Prods.

835 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2016

The best known, and most frequently invoked, immunity-from-suit cases involve claims of sovereign immunity, absolute immunity, and qualified immunity raised by governmental entities and individuals. … Often called “up-the-ladder” contractor immunity, it establishes an immunity from suit, not just from liability. Black concedes as much. See Appellee’s Br. 5, 20. Dixie and Georgia-Pacific agree.

J. B. Taylor v. E. P. Perini, Superintendent

503 F.2d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 3, 1974

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 (1974), discussed the nature of this immunity in the context of a suit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 : These considerations suggest that, in varying scope, a qualified immunity is available … It is the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, coupled with good faith belief, that affords basis for qualified immunity of executive officers for acts performed

Tze-Pong "Raymond" Ku v. State of Tennessee

322 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 2003

Hunt, 646 F.2d 1168, 1169 (6th Cir.1981) (citing Sherman for the proposition that a student’s interest in continuing medical school is a “qualified property interest” under Tennessee law). … In sum, the undisputed facts, even accepting as true Ku’s misapprehension of the pervasive faculty perception of his *438 problems at the College, establish that Tennessee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Ku’

Joey Leon Smith v. Jeff Thornburg, Kenneth Slagle, Chris Line, Jim Claiborne, Ron Trentham, Mark Fortner, and the City of Knoxville, Tennessee

136 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 1998

Qualified Immunity 105 Finally, there are issues pertaining to qualified immunity that must also be addressed. … However, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is not appropriate in this instance. 107 When a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established

Gerald M. Sparks v. Character and Fitness Committee of Kentucky

859 F.2d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 1988

Our system of justice depends, in substantial measure, upon the service of competent and qualified attorneys. … The establishment of criteria for determining the intellectual competence, academic preparedness, and moral fitness of persons who petition the court for the privilege of undertaking the confidential trust of serving the

Radvansky v. Olmsted Falls

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 2005

did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.” … Qualified Immunity Having established that a reasonable jury could find that Telegdy and Saxer violated Radvansky’s constitutional right, the next steps in the qualified immunity analysis are to determine whether

Felicia Morgan v. Wayne County, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 3, 2022

Page 6 Qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … It is Morgan’s burden to rebut the defense of qualified immunity.

Kurzawa v. Mueller

732 F.2d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 22, 1984

It was determined that the statute of limitations and the defendants' right to qualified immunity abrogated the Kurzawas’ claims. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the district court. … Such a position clearly places him squarely within the judicial process to accomplish that goal.

Whitfield v. Tennessee

639 F.3d 253 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 2011

Rising, 427 F.3d 351, 368 (6th Cir.2005) (en bane) (“We consider Eleventh Amendment immunity, as well as any exceptions to it, on a claim-by-claim basis.”). … This three-element test {“Mahon formulation”) for a prima facie case is clearly inconsistent with the five-element test described supra {“Monette formulation”). Monette states the proper test.

United States v. Gordon Pennell

737 F.2d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 1984

The court stressed that immunity should not be afforded to witnesses whose proffered testimony is ambiguous, cumulative, not clearly exculpatory or relevant only to credibility. Id. … The Smith case clearly indicates, however, that immunity should not be granted under such circumstances. 615 F.2d at 972 .

Buck Ryan v. David Blackwell

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 3, 2020

Furthermore, because Ryan failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, he is not able to overcome qualified immunity. II. … The qualified immunity doctrine prevents government actors from being held liable for “conduct [that] does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Ross v. Cty Memphis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 2005

Crews argues that his reliance on their advice renders his behavior reasonable, thus entitling him to a defense of qualified immunity. … Page 7 established’ at the time it was taken.”) (quoting Harlow v.

Fortis Corporate Insurance, SA v. Viken Ship Management As

597 F.3d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 10, 2010

Was the District Court’s Negligence Finding Clearly Erroneous? … VSM asserts that this holding rested on clearly erroneous factual findings.

Wendell Shane MacKey v. Dennis Dyke

111 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 1997

immunity. … and (2) that corrections officials were not entitled to qualified immunity in light of Mackey’s clearly established right to release from segregation.

Jeffrey Capen v. Saginaw County, Mich.

103 F.4th 457 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 5, 2024

The district court also determined that because any right Capen asserted was not clearly established, Belleman was entitled to qualified immunity. … and that such rights were “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Heather Baker v. City of Trenton

936 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2019

Having found no constitutional violation, we need not examine the second prong of qualified immunity (whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation). … On appeal, we affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. Id.

Mark Lovell v. Clermont Cnty. Sheriff's Office

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 2026

The district court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. … But the factual disputes in this appeal are “‘crucial to’ the qualified immunity question.” Gillman, 126 F.4th at 1160 (quoting Phelps, 286 F.3d at 298).

Wright v. Moise

67 F. App'x 924 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 20, 2003

immunity. … Defendants denied qualified immunity therefore can appeal on the ground that the facts as alleged by the plaintiff and construed in the light most favorable to him do not establish a prima facie violation of constitutional