Case law

See v. City of Elyria

502 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2007

by the defendant, the defendant’s actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity. … See has met his burden of establishing that Med-ders is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Denise Coley v. Lucas County, Ohio

799 F.3d 530 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

Gray’s argument that his actions did not violate clearly established law thus also fails. 2. … At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, those rights were clearly established.

Neal W. Roland v. Perry Johnson, Thomas Phillips, Dale Foltz, Bernie Toland

933 F.2d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 1991

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1988), the Supreme Court refined the qualified immunity test developed in Harlow. … Accordingly, defendants' claim of qualified immunity is without merit. 9 The defendants next assert the district court erred in entering judgment in Roland's favor.

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

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.

Everson v. Leis

556 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … But under § 1983, “an arresting agent is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information

Term Auto Sales, Inc. v. City of Cleveland

996 F.2d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 1993

II. 10 Defendants argue on appeal that they are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs' § 1983 claim because Ohio law on the status of federal certification labels was not clearly established at the time of their … See Robinson, 840 F.2d at 351 (explaining that a question must be decided by the highest state court in the state where the case arose in order to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity).

Long v. Norris

929 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 1991

Thus, we venture once more into the labyrinth of deciding what makes a right “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. In Mitchell v. … established at the time of the searches for purposes of qualified immunity.

Michele Rafferty v. Trumbull Cty., Ohio

915 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 15, 2019

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 … “To qualify as clearly established, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Kindl v.

Philip R. Plant v. Morton International, Inc.

212 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2000

The ADA Claim In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Plant must show 1) that he is disabled; 2) that he is otherwise qualified for his previous position with Morton, with or without reasonable … Although the evidence did not clearly indicate that Plant’s condition was temporary, Plant was unable to come forward with any evidence that it was permanent, and the mere possibility of recurrence is not sufficient to establish

Jeffrey Queen v. City of Bowling Green

956 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 2020

“Clearly established” means that the “factual context of the occurrence must not exemplify a ‘legally uncertain environment’ in which qualified official immunity is appropriate.” Id. … Kentucky’s “clearly established” requirement tracks the same standards used to determine if a statutory or constitutional right is “clearly established” for purposes of determining whether an officer has federal qualified

Jerome Yates, Jameela Yates v. City of Cleveland, Sanford L. Currie, Officer

941 F.2d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1991

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear

Estate of Hill ex rel. Hill v. Miracle

853 F.3d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2017

Miracle’s qualified-immunity defense Qualified immunity shields “government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Miracle is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Hill’s § 1983 claim of excessive force. 2. Hill’s Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established.

Max Ross v. Ed Hinton, Jr.

937 F.2d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 1991

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). 8 Ross argues that the district court erred in finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. We disagree. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (state officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known).

Meals v. City of Memphis, Tennessee

493 F.3d 720 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 11, 2007

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 … If the plaintiff fails to establish any one of these elements, qualified immunity must be granted. Radvansky v.

James Rieves v. Town of Smyrna, Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil suits for damages, so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … On a general level, “[i]t is clearly established that an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.” Crockett v.

Armstrong v. City Of Melvindale

432 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

Qualified Immunity Framework 8 Qualified immunity shields public officials who perform discretionary functions from the necessity of defending against tort liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … right was clearly established."

Barker v. Goodrich

649 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2011

On January 10, 2010, the magistrate judge granted summary judgment to all Defendants on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that the evidence established a constitutional violation, but the right at issue was not clearly … Accordingly, the constitutional right was clearly established and we REVERSE the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to all Defendants. III.

Roger Miller Music, Inc., and Mary A. Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Sony/atv Publishing, Llc, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

477 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2007

Rather, a motion under Rule 59(e) “must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d at 16 ; FDIC v. … Winchester-Conant Prop., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 40 (1st Cir.2003) (“Uses of the copyrighted work that stay within the scope of a nonexclusive license are immunized from infringement suits.”).