Case law

Brewer v. Cleveland Municipal School District

84 F. App'x 570 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 11, 2003

Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and dismiss complaints that are frivolous, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must show that: (1) she belongs to a class protected under Title VII; (2) she was qualified for the position she held; (3) she suffered an adverse employment

David Ezell, Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of Billy Don Ezell, Deceased v. Christian County, Kentucky and Chuck Chambers

245 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2001

Sovereign Immunity for Christian County The district court granted summary judgment to Christian County on the ground of sovereign immunity. … The statute clearly conveys a purpose: to provide safe roads for motorists and to require the county engineer to implement that intent.

Lawrence Ex Rel. Estate of Hoffman v. Madison County

695 F. App'x 930 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 2017

establish that the requirements for qualified official immunity are satisfied. … Qualified official immunity also does not apply to acts performed in bad faith, which “can be predicated on a violation of a constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established right which a person in the public employee

Jessie Harrison v. State of Michigan

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2013

Sovereign Immunity The district court correctly held that the State, MDOC, and the state parole board were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. … Page 5 It is well established that § 1983 does not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment, see Quern v.

Sally A. Shea v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

780 F.2d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 1986

Sally Shea was unable to establish these checks were written for business purposes. Petitioner also had a personal checking account in her name. … Therefore, we will accept the Tax Court’s determination unless clearly erroneous.

Agility Network Services, Inc. v. United States

848 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 17, 2017

Then, when describing that agency action taken under Chapter 64 of Subtitle F—which includes §§ 6320 and 6330, governing CDP hearings—is collection action, the regulation qualifies: “[A] collection action for purposes of … This is clearly a request for an injunction inhibiting the government from collecting on the taxpayers’ tax debt, which § 7421(a) prohibits.

United States v. Cunningham

679 F.3d 355 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 2012

And he further attempts to immunize his conduct by pointing to the fact that Judge Bamberger signed off on many of the actions that constituted the alleged scheme to defraud. … Page 35 others, but this fact had already been established by the trial testimony of numerous clients.

Vickie Frost v. Hawkins County Board Of Education

851 F.2d 822 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 12, 1988

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court held that, in general, executive officials are entitled to qualified or good-faith immunity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Neither Snodgrass nor Price, by enforcing Board policy, nor Ashbrook, by arresting Frost, violated any clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should have known.

Roger Lange v. Dan McGinnis

644 F. App'x 672 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2016

McGinnis is entitled to qualified immunity unless a reasonable jury could find that he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his actions. See DiLuzio v. … We skip to the question whether McGinnis’s actions violated any clearly established right.

Barbara Combs v. Commissioner of Social Security

459 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2006

around such immunity. … The pages to which the lead opinion cites continue and state that, even though the FSIA was not clearly substantive or procedural, the general presumption against retroac-tivity did not apply to sovereign immunity, as sovereign

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of David Morganstern and Fred Morganstern

771 F.2d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 1985

Immunity is not involved if the person subpoenaed has no Fifth Amendment right to refuse to comply. … The Morgansterns should have an opportunity to establish their allegations in district court.

McShane v. Moldovan

172 F.2d 1016 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 1949

and constitution of the State of Michigan; that the justice of the peace was thereupon required by law to direct a disinterested constable or other person to write down the names of eighteen inhabitants of Wayne County qualified … We feel that the facts in the Bottone case clearly are distinguishable from those in the present controversy.

Dale Beckett v. Jack Ford

384 F. App'x 435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2010

be shielded by qualified immunity because Forrester had attempted to frame Beckett. … Qualified immunity recognizes that the public interest is best served when officials can act “with independence and without fear of consequences” so long as their actions do not violate clearly established rights.

Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Jon Husted

831 F.3d 382 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 2016

The State of Ohio answered and asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity to Count Five. R. 21 (State of Ohio Answer at 11) (Page ID #222). … The Supreme Court established this principle in American Party of Texas v.

Milan Chonich Carmen Pascaretti v. Wayne County Community College Juanita C. Ford

973 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 1992

Ford has claimed a qualified privilege or immunity. … The same rationale applies to Ford’s claim of qualified immunity.

Rosebush v. United States

119 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 16, 1997

If not, the Forest Service’s decisions as to the precise manner in which to do so would clearly fall within the discretionary function exemption to the government’s tort liability. See Childers v. … This argument echoes plaintiffs’ negligence theory of what conduct has been de-immunized.

Mark Cleary v. County of Macomb

409 F. App'x 890 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2011

established, such that Lamb was not entitled to qualified immunity at that stage of the proceedings. … It is well-established that “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

United States v. King

840 F.2d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 1988

Thus we decline to upset the verdict based on the defendants' argument that the District Court used the wrong definition of "involuntary servitude." 20 The activities of the defendant members of the cult group clearly fall … The framers clearly did intend that parents were entitled to enter into master/apprentice agreements, and agreements analogous to them.

Shalimar Howard v. Livingston Cnty., Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 20, 2023

The district court denied both absolute and qualified immunity, but we reversed the denial of qualified immunity on the ground that the law was not clearly established. Id. at 507. … Qualified immunity depends on whether the prosecutor violated clearly-established legal rights. Id. at 506. True, Stockdale referenced absolute immunity in its qualified-immunity analysis. Id. at 506–07.

FDIC v. Amtrust Financial Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 2012

The defendant officers moved for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, but the district court denied the motion. Id. at 890. … Id. at 892; see also id. at 893 (“[T]he qualified immunity defenses . . . do not present ‘neat abstract issues of law.’”).