Case law

Fox v. DeSoto

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 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.

Lacino Hamilton v. James Fleming

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 2026

“A public official is entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights … In other words, was the right clearly established?

Kevin Lindke v. James Freed

114 F.4th 812 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2024

The same substantive message may alternatively qualify as state or private action, depending on the circumstances. … immunity.

Ghandi v. Police Department of Detroit

823 F.2d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 13, 1987

On April 11, 1975, the district court dismissed the claims against the FBI on the basis of sovereign immunity. 66 F.R.D. 385 (E.D.Mich.1975). … After six years of discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual federal defendants on the basis of qualified immunity.

Bahaa Iswed v. Patricia Caruso

573 F. App'x 485 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2014

Qualified immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education

836 F.2d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 15, 1988

The “absolute bar” of sovereign immunity therefore applies. … The federal judiciary clearly has the duty and the power to prohibit segregation in the schools of Tennessee, but in no way does it follow that the judiciary has any corresponding authority to dictate the spe *996 cific financial

Cook v. Martin

148 F. App'x 327 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 27, 2005

In 2001, the Court established a two-part test for determining whether qualified immunity applies. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). … established.”

Robert Bailey v. Christopher Golladay

421 F. App'x 579 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 3, 2011

“Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity depends on whether the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated and whether those rights were 4 clearly established … When making a qualified immunity analysis, the facts must be interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Christopher Richardson v. Mohammed Nasser

421 F. App'x 611 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 5, 2011

the violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity We analyze claims of qualified immunity by asking three questions: “(1) whether a constitutional right was violated; (2) whether that right was clearly established and one of which a reasonable

Robert Lee Caver v. Dennis M. Straub, Warden

349 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 5, 2004

As the Supreme Court has noted, “[i]t is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law’” for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Id. at 391 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 . … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) (fair warning of unconstitutional conduct required where officials seek qualified immunity from suit in cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ).

Stephen M. Stern and Christopher D. Becker v. John J. Mascio

262 F.3d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2001

The district court granted Mascio’s motion, concluding that absolute judicial immunity bars the instant suit because Mascio acted in a judicial capacity and did not clearly lack all subject-niatter jurisdiction, even though … This court has read Bradley as establishing that, “[o]nly in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction are judicial actors devoid of the shield of immunity.

Brown v. Shaner

172 F.3d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 1999

Lovelace leave to file an amended complaint naming O'Hara in his individual capacity without prejudice to any motion by the defendant to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds of qualified immunity or the statute of … However, the district court then considered and granted O'Hara's motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. 34 On appeal, this Court considered the relation back question only under Rule 15(c)(3), not

Karem v. United States

121 F. 250 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 24, 1903

The state may establish any other conditions and discriminations it pleases, whether as to age, sex, property, education, or anything else.” In United States v. … That section has for its object the punishment of all persons who, by force, bribery, etc., hinder, delay, etc., any person from qualifying or voting.

Fathiree Udin Ali v. Stephen Adamson

132 F.4th 924 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 2025

Qualified immunity protects officials from damages liability if their conduct “does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Adamson did not violate Ali’s clearly established free-exercise rights.

Christopher Hicks v. Kathleen Crowley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 24, 2025

Qualified immunity shields the Board officials from liability unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … “Many Courts of Appeals . . . decline to consider district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.” Camreta v.

Lucille C. Place v. Mrs. Mary C. Shepherd

446 F.2d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 17, 1971

Plaintiff was made Chairman of a committee to determine the number and availability of all those local people who were qualified nurses, but not working as such. … However, we are not bound by allegations that are clearly unsupported and unsupportable, Sexton v. Barry, 233 F.2d 220 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 870 , 77 S.Ct. 94 , 1 L.Ed.2d 76 ; Pauling v.

Garavaglia v. Budde

43 F.3d 1472 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 1994

of qualified immunity. 6 Where there exists no clearly established right to be free from the conduct alleged, the defendant official is entitled to summary judgment prior to discovery, because qualified immunity is an immunity … The district court granted the agents qualified immunity because the plaintiffs' allegations, taken as true, did not establish a violation of any clearly established right. 10 We agree with the district court.

Peter Galinis v. County of Branch

660 F. App'x 350 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2016

II Whether a defendant receives qualified immunity in a § 1983 action turns on two questions: did the defendant violate a constitutionally protected right, and if so, was the right clearly established at the time the act … Judge Coyle’s remarks are not sufficient to render clearly established law unclear.

Joseph McAdam v. Matthew Warmuskerken

517 F. App'x 437 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 15, 2013

To overcome an officer’s claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish, first, that the officer violated a constitutional right and, second, that the right was “clearly established” at the time the officer acted … A single tasing violates a plaintiff’s clearly established rights if he is neutralized and is not resisting an officer’s efforts to restrain him.

Walter Codd v. Robert Brown, Jr. William Grant and Lorna Elkins

949 F.2d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 22, 1991

The director clearly has the latitude to establish broad categories excluded from participation in the work-pass program. Plaintiff was provided a pre-termination hearing to contest his inclusion in that category. … He cannot legitimately contend *884 that his initial placement in the program, although in error, could not be rescinded by the state without violating clearly established constitutional or statutory rights, yet that is the