Case law

George Lane Beverly Jones, United States of America, Intervenor v. State of Tennessee, Polk County, Tennessee

315 F.3d 680 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2003

The evidence before Congress when it enacted Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act established that physical barriers in government buildings, including courthouses and in the courtrooms themselves, have had the … The record demonstrated that public entities’ failure to accommodate the needs of qualified persons with disabilities may result directly from unconstitutional animus and impermissible stereotypes.

David M. Foster v. Lawrence J. Walsh, Clerk, Akron Municipal Court

864 F.2d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 1988

II It is well established that judges and other court officers enjoy absolute immunity from suit on claims arising out of the performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Pierson v. … Foster argues that this court’s jurisdiction is limited to the qualified immunity issue, it is clear that in a case appealed under Mitchell v. Forsyth we may consider other issues as well. Carlson v.

In Re: Stanley Lowenbraun, Debtor. Ethel Lowenbraun v. Thomas L. Canary, Jr. And Mapother & Mapother, Psc

453 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 6, 2006

Canary contends, however, that the documents referred to by Ethel do not conclusively establish his knowledge of the transfer. … The bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions are subject to de novo review, and its factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. B.

Leonard Embody v. Steve Ward

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2012

immunity is the answer. … Such a right may or may not exist, but the critical point for our purposes is that it has not been established—clearly or otherwise at this point.

Greg Adkisson v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc

36 F.4th 686 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 13, 2022

within the scope of their contracts, unless a Plaintiff establishes that the contractor failed to comply with explicit or clearly established government directions or requirements.” … Any immunity protecting the TVA when it is acting in a noncommercial, governmental activity would apply only “if one of the following circumstances is ‘clearly shown’: either the ‘type[] of suit [at issue is] not consistent

Brandon Fox v. Ronald Desoto, Louisville Regional Airport Authority

489 F.3d 227 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 4, 2007

If a violation could be made out taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, then the next step is to determine whether the right was clearly established in a particularized sense, such that “it would be … Qualified immunity is a question of law, which we review de novo. Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151 , 1157 (6th Cir.1996). 1.

Christopher Skinner v. A. Peter Govorchin

463 F.3d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2006

As to Skinner’s individual-capacity claim, sovereign immunity does not bar the suit, but prosecutorial immunity does. … immunity” applies.

Owens-Bauer v. Brooks

36 F. App'x 175 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2002

Brooks moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil *176 Procedure 12(b)(6), or, alternatively, for dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity. … We have carefully reviewed the record, the applicable law and the parties’ briefs, and we find that the district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised and clearly articulates

Burda Bros. v. Walsh

22 F. App'x 423 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 12, 2001

of several seizures; or (2) that material questions of fact nonetheless made summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds improper. … immunity.”

Smith v. Athens County

79 F. App'x 841 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 29, 2003

The district court found that defendants Childs and May were entitled to qualified immunity, because objectively reasonable officers under these circumstances would not have recognized that their conduct was violating any … clearly established constitutional right.

S & M BRANDS, INC. v. Cooper

527 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 13, 2008

Grand Tobacco established a qualified escrow fund account and deposits have been made to that account in Grand Tobacco’s name. … It found that the injunctive relief sought by Verizon Maryland — “that state officials be restrained from enforcing an order in contravention of controlling federal law” — was clearly prospective in nature.

Barbara Novak, Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, Cross-Appellee

865 F.2d 718 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

. *720 Dermatomyositis (DM/PM), akin to poly-myositis, is a “perplexing disease of unknown origin, thought to affect the body’s auto-immune system which causes the immune system to destroy muscle and/or skin tissue.” 1 Then … Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) applies in this case, and the district court’s causation finding is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Hasler v.

Collins v. Village of New Vienna

75 F. App'x 486 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2003

The parties consented to trial of the case before the magistrate judge, and defendants subsequently moved the court for a partial summary judgment based in part on a qualified immunity defense. … The Supreme Court clearly has deter *488 mined that local legislators are absolutely immune from liability for legislative activities. Bogan v.

Dominic Tedesco v. United States

255 F.2d 35 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 1958

is not necessary to validity; and that the statute in issue here clearly undertakes to grant state as well as federal immunity. … In our judgment, the legislative intent is clearly on the side of the presumption of separability.

Jerry L. Rowe v. State of Tennessee

609 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 1979

This “qualified immunity” of National Guard officers and *266 enlisted men was not relied upon by the district court in dismissing the action against these appellees. It has not been raised by them on appeal. … Such actions are within the sphere of qualified immunity for Guard officers adumbrated in Procunier and Scheuer , and Rowe’s further allegations as to Wallis’s acting in bad faith and in concert with other defendants to force

Gohl Ex Rel. J.G. v. Livonia Public Schools School District

836 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2016

Second, the novelty of Gohl’s theory of injury means that she cannot overcome Turbiak’s qualified immunity. … That necessarily means *681 that the right Gohl asserts is not clearly-established, making Turbiak eligible for qualified immunity. (2) Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims.

Leonard v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services

43 F. App'x 771 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 2002

In the defendants’ answer to Leonard’s amended complaint, Wagner alleged qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, something only applicable in a suit against Wagner in his individual capacity. … The defendants also argue that Wagner is protected in this ease by qualified immunity.

Natasha Thomas Susan Gibbs Edwina Lewis v. Ann Cohen Glenn Craig James Embry Susan Harbour, in Their Individual Capacities

453 F.3d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 31, 2006

immunity. … A divided panel of this court concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim, but that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Fourteenth

Leslie Wheaton v. John McCarthy

800 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 2015

Section 1983 provides “a cause of action against any person who under color of state law, deprives ‘any citizen of the United States . . . of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.’” … Terms that are ambiguous in that sense do not clearly encompass anything. But some terms are ambiguous only at the margins, while clearly encompassing a certain core.

Himes v. United States

645 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 13, 2011

of § 342.690(1) and would be entitled to immunity should it qualify under the rest of the definition of ‘contractor’ as found in § 342.610(2).” … The Plaintiffs’ discovery requests clearly exceeded this limited scope.