Case law

Alan Cole v. City of Dearborn

448 F. App'x 571 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 28, 2011

right and then whether that right was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct. … Clearly Established For a right to be clearly established, its contours “must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing violates that right.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202.

Jones Bey v. Johnson

248 F. App'x 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 2007

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity in civil suits when they are engaged in discretionary acts “which do not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If so, then we must determine if the violated right was clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

Milligan v. United States

670 F.3d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 2012

The FTCA waives sovereign immunity where state law would impose liability against a private individual, Myers v. … The Tennessee fair report privilege is a qualified privilege that raises the state of mind requirement in both defamation and false light actions to an actual malice standard. See Lewis v.

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 … He cannot legitimately contend *884 that his initial placement in the program, although in error, could not be rescinded by the state without violating clearly established constitutional or statutory rights, yet that is the

King v. ZAMIARA

680 F.3d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2012

” constitutional violation in May 2000 so as to preclude qualified immunity. … conduct, and such retaliation was a violation of “clearly established” constitutional law as set forth in Thaddeus-X v.

Karen Meyers v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ.

983 F.3d 873 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 29, 2020

On appeal, Jackson and McKenzie argue that they are entitled to governmental immunity with respect to the Plaintiffs’ state law claims because the amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish that their … This Court finds their behavior, as alleged, to be egregious and clearly reckless, thus barring them from the shield of government immunity.

Heather Hulon v. City of Lansing, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 14, 2025

before it—used the old standard to grant qualified immunity after it focused on whether the contours of the right to be free from deliberate indifference had been clearly established, 93 F.4th at 927-28. … established law for purposes of qualified immunity.

Cooper v. County of Washtenaw

222 F. App'x 459 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 2007

To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that “the right at issue was ... ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 703 (6th Cir.2001). 1. … Defendant Watchowski alternatively argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Kelvin Nolen v. Steven Ford

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 18, 2026

Ford Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suit unless their conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … So that case provides no roadmap for liability and does not clearly establish the right Nolen seeks to vindicate. As such, Nolen has not overcome Ford’s assertion of qualified immunity on this claim.

Nails v. Riggs

195 F. App'x 303 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 2006

The district court interpreted the answer as asserting qualified immunity, even though the answer does not use magic words like “qualified immunity” or “clearly established constitutional right.” … Not clearly established.

S.S. v. Eastern Kentucky University

532 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 2008

immunity. … S.’s right to equal protection, we have no need to discuss the availability of qualified immunity for the defendants in this case. See Scott v.

United States v. Robert Ware, Jr.

161 F.3d 414 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 3, 1998

That panel said that "the government does not give immunity directly for the witness’s testimony; the government may move the court to grant immunity.” … The immunity statute does not permit the court to grant immunity on its own motion; the United States Attorney must make that motion.

Ghandi v. Police Department of City of Detroit

823 F.2d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 31, 1987

After six years of discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual federal defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. … Id. at 107-08. 29 These findings have not been challenged as clearly erroneous.

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.

Bertha BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew BAEPPLER; David Wilsman, Defendants-Appellants

215 F.3d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 2000

immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” … in fact’ ” violated “clearly established law” in taking the action he did.

Louis David Johnson, Jr. v. Unknown Dellatifa (03-1497/1880) Unknown Carline (03-1506/1865) S. Powers (03-1555/1833) Dave Stasewish (03-1559/1835)

357 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2004

Such a suit, we held, is barred by the Eleventh Amendment unless the state expressly consents to being sued and therefore waives its sovereign immunity. Id. … Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 , 71 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304 , 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), or by suing the defendants in their individual, rather than official, capacities (subject, of course, to qualified immunity defenses),

Morris v. Boyd

39 F. App'x 281 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2002

Moreover, he *284 has not established that he was injured by an unlawful act by either defendant. … Because we conclude that Morris has not alleged any facts supporting his various theories of recovery, we need not consider whether any of the remaining defendants are entitled to qualified or absolute immunity.

Popovich v. Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas

276 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2002

The case arises under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 , which provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation … In the case before us, the essential constitutional right sounds most clearly not in equal protection but in due process.

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

Miller v. Stovall

608 F.3d 913 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), state-court judgments are immune from attack on habeas unless they are “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme … with a sufficient level of specificity to qualify as “clearly established” under AEDPA.