Case law

Richard Wesley v. Alison Campbell

864 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2017

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To determine whether Rigney is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine whether the facts within the trial record make out a violation of a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established “such

Eric Earnest, Jr. v. Genesee Cnty., Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 2021

constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.” … clearly established).

Kevin Laury v. Matthew Rodriguez

659 F. App'x 837 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2016

Actions on the Ground Price’s actions following the initial takedown are similarly not entitled to qualified immunity. … show that there was a constitutional violation and that the right at issue was clearly established.

Celeste Thomas v. Jennifer Myers

489 F. App'x 116 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2012

Once the defendant raises qualified immunity, however, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must demonstrate both that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right, and that the right was so clearly established … “When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Heyne v. Metro.

Robert Hall v. Medical College of Ohio at Toledo

742 F.2d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 1984

II Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, we cannot conclude that any other “clearly established” constitutional rights were violated in Hall’s expulsion from MCO.

Ali Shamaeizadeh v. Joel Cunigan

338 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

Furthermore, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this aspect of Shamaeizadeh’s § 1983 claim because their unconstitutional conduct “involved a clearly established constitutional right of which … Even though the officers violated Shamaeizadeh’s clearly established constitutional rights, they are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if Shamaeizadeh has failed to offer sufficient evidence that the officers’ actions

Robert D. Alexander v. Merit Systems Protection Board

165 F.3d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 21, 1999

This is clearly not the equivalent of an 18-month suspension without pay. … While Davis involved a challenge to different tax treatment of federal and state retirees' retirement benefits, the challenge was not based on equal protection, but on a federal statute which preserves federal employees’ immunity

Martinique Stoudemire v. Mich. Dep't of Corrections

705 F.3d 560 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

Taken together, these sentences clearly suffice as an assertion of qualified immunity. … Dunagan focuses on whether the law regarding same- sex strip searches is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. However, No. 11-1588 Stoudemire v. Mich.

Ronnie Gibson, Sr. v. Nicholas Abate

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 11, 2025

He claims that we should be wary of dismissing a case under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) based on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. … There, we answered both questions raised by the officers’ qualified-immunity defense: Did the officers violate the Constitution? And did the caselaw clearly establish the violation when it occurred?

Bartell v. Lohiser

215 F.3d 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 7, 2000

No defendants may assert qualified immunity. … However, this Circuit, as well as a number of “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right has been our sister Circuits, have granted state employees qualified immunity violated; and second, we ascertain whether

Jason Cunningham v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn.

994 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2021

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established … The district court pointed to precedent from this court that it believed had clearly established before March of 2017 that, for Paschal and Wiggins to be entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case

Ohio Civil Service Employees Association v. Richard P. Seiter

858 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 1988

The court stated that this decision added to the evidence that clearly established the protected right in this case. Until recently, the controlling Supreme Court case on qualified immunity, Wood v. … Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

Jamie Peterson v. David Heymes

931 F.3d 546 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known were in existence. … Peterson fails to plead clearly established constitutional violations with respect to each federal claim.

Daily Services, LLC v. Tracy Valentino

756 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2014

Qualified Immunity’s Clearly Established Law and Parratt Our qualified immunity analysis first addresses the sole basis for the district court’s decision: whether Daily Services’ claimed constitutional right was “clearly … The applicability of Parratt , then, is irrelevant to the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Scott Peatross v. City of Memphis

818 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 2016

violated clearly established law.”) … Cupp, 430 F.3d 766, 774 (6th Cir. 2005), the right is clearly established.

Sterling Hotels, LLC v. Scott McKay

71 F.4th 463 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2023

To overcome McKay’s assertion of qualified immunity at this stage, Sterling need only plausibly allege that McKay violated its clearly established constitutional rights. … McKay’s potential individual liability for a regulatory takings claim was not clearly established when he sealed the elevators. That means McKay is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Timothy Raimey v. City of Niles, Ohio

77 F.4th 441 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights.” Quigley v. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suit as long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Estate of Seth Michael Zakora v. Troy Chrisman

44 F.4th 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

Two factors lead us away, however, from deciding this case under the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity for the first time on appeal. … No clearly established constitutional right. What ought to create a stop sign at step one of qualified immunity generates a grinding halt at step two.

Haskell Greer v. City of Highland Park, Mich.

884 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2018

Page 2 qualified immunity. … DISCUSSION 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

United States v. May

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2005

The district court’s factual findings are upheld unless they are clearly erroneous, but its “legal conclusions as to the existence of probable cause are reviewed de novo.” United States v. … Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 480 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Sixth Circuit precedent clearly establishes that the affiant need only specify that the confidential informant has given accurate information in the past to qualify as reliable.