Case law

Howard Linden v. Thomas Piotrowski

619 F. App'x 495 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 24, 2015

Because the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established in the context of this case, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, and we reverse. … clearly established.

State of Ohio v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 25, 2021

And as we’ve said, when a circuit panel overlooks a Supreme Court ruling, we are bound to “discharg[e] our duty to follow clearly controlling Supreme Court precedent” rather than the holding in a decision of our court that … section lacked an express fee provision despite related sections having such provisions, and that it would be a stretch to include private cost recovery actions in the statute’s provision for “enforcement activities” that qualify

Touvell v. OH Dept Mental Dev

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 2005

was accordingly immune from suit. … As noted in Laro, “[t]his concern clearly goes to Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and not Section 5.” 259 F.3d at 12.

Thompson v. Budd Co.

199 F.3d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 1999

The district court entered summary judgment for Budd, finding that Budd qualified as a “contractor” under Kentucky Workers’ Compensation law and that Budd was immune from liability. … Kentucky case law is clear that activities beyond one’s primary business objective may qualify under section 342.610.

Kovacs v. Chesley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 2, 2005

The legal certainty test was established by the Supreme Court in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938), and clearly applies in cases like this one that do not involve liquidated damages. … Whereas a court considering a summary judgment motion could examine defenses, such as qualified immunity, res judicata, or the application of a statute of limitations, a court considering a dismissal for failure to meet the

Thelonious Jackson v. Daniel Lubelan

657 F. App'x 497 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 16, 2016

The district court concluded that qualified immunity precludes his claims. … In this instance, we resolve the case on the clearly established ground.

Downs v. United States

522 F.2d 990 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 8, 1975

The 4-3 majority opinion concluded that immunized discretion “includes determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing plans, specifications or schedules of operations. … We hold that the District Court’s conclusion as to negligence was clearly erroneous and must be reversed.

Wilson Ex Rel. T.W. v. Martin

549 F. App'x 309 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 2013

“Determinations of qualified immunity require us to answer two questions: first, whether the officer violated a constitutional right; and second, whether that right was clearly established in light of the specific context … A citizen’s right to be free from arrest without probable cause is clearly established. Leonard v. Robinson, 477 F.3d 347, 355 (6th Cir. 2007).

Jorrell Lambert v. City of Saginaw, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 2025

So we have jurisdiction to review Beyerlein’s appeal of the qualified-immunity denial. Id. at 911. On the merits, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … City of Saginaw Under these facts, a jury could find that Beyerlein violated Lambert’s clearly established rights.

Barbara Moore v. Christine Money

590 F. App'x 562 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2014

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In considering a qualified-immunity claim, we undertake a two-step inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional right was violated on the facts alleged, and (2) whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation

Jason Zuhl v. County of Berrien

652 F. App'x 358 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 2016

Qualified immunity shields government officials in the performance of discretionary functions from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … We also noted another limited area of jurisdiction with respect to interlocutory qualified immunity appeals.

Greyhound Food Management Inc. v. City of Dayton, Federal Ins. Co. v. City of Dayton

852 F.2d 866 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 15, 1988

Batdorf 6 Ohio St.3d 100 , 451 N.E.2d 1185 (1983) (retroactively applying the Ohio comparative negligence law), and argues that if immunities can be abolished retroactively, then they can certainly be established retroactively … Nowhere does it state that the judiciary may not apply laws retroactively, and, as demonstrated above, the Ohio Supreme Court has quite clearly held to the contrary.

Dorothy J. Totten v. United States

806 F.2d 698 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 1986

court held, “The United States’ decisions to delegate safety responsibility to Chrysler, to conduct only ‘spot cheeks’ of Chrysler’s safety programs, and to not institute a safety training program for rail-yard workers are clearly … The document thus clearly directs the Air Force and other military departments to exercise discretion in adapting the standard to individual weapon system operations.

Vivian Johnson v. Hills & Dales General Hospital

40 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 16, 1994

Plaintiff must also establish that the conspiracy was motivated by a class-based animus. Id. at 653 . … The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, if applied too broadly, could immunize all private conspiracies from redress where the actors coincidentally were employees of the same company.

Roy Denton v. Steve Rievley

353 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2009

The court found that Rievley was not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because a reasonable officer would have known of clearly established law prohibiting warrantless in-home arrests. … Qualified immunity is available, and government officials are shielded from civil liability for discretionary functions, “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Nelson v. Riddle

217 F. App'x 456 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 15, 2007

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit for civil damages unless their actions have violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … clearly established.”

Nancy C. Hickman v. Valley Local School District Board of Education

619 F.2d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 1980

The district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Young acted in good faith. Therefore we affirm his immunity from liability. … Also, we believe that the district court erred in declaring that the constitutional rights of Hickman were not clearly established.

James Swart v. Terry Pitcher, Joseph Hosey Sandra Pretzer Dave Bergh Bryan Holman Roger Broadstone Richard Metevia Michael Glowick

9 F.3d 109 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 1993

the facts pleaded would not show that his conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have known at the time ... 11 ... … constitute a violation of clearly established law. 12 Id.

Joseph Libretti, Jr. v. Steven Woodson

600 F. App'x 367 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 15, 2015

Qualified immunity is also reviewed de novo, Rondigo, L.L.C. v. … To defeat qualified immunity and succeed on a Bivens claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a federal official defendant (being sued in his individual capacity) infringed upon the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional

Diane Boger v. Wayne County Vernice Davis-Anthony

950 F.2d 316 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 1991

The defendants asserted a number of affirmative defenses, including both absolute and qualified immunity. B. … The district court will reconsider dismissal of the pendent state law claims in light of its ultimate disposition of the remanded First Amendment and immunity issues.