Case law

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.

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.’”).

John Russell v. Allison Lundergan-Grimes

784 F.3d 1037 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 28, 2015

The sovereign immunity guaranteed by this Amendment deprives federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction when a citizen sues his own State unless the State waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that sovereign immunity … Denying Defendants’ claims of Eleventh Amendment immunity also confirms our jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.

Edward J. Ogletree v. Robert S. McNamara

449 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 1971

It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all qualified persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin … The operation of our defense establishments is, of course, close to the core of the concept of sovereign immunity.

Farkas v. United States

2 F.2d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 13, 1924

Clearly the purport of it is that the jury disagreed as to the guilt of the defendant on these counts. 2. … Concededly promises of immunity are admissible; they are, however, rarely made.

Borda v. Hardy, Lewis, Pollard & Page, P.C.

138 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 1998

Flanagan , as we have explained, established an “affected employee” test that Mr. Borda could not meet. And Bayer established a test that Mr. … Borda was in no position to complain of a premature distribution of funds that were clearly never going to be his. The judgment entered by the district court is AFFIRMED. .

Cynthia Roberts v. Manuel Cruz

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2023

Once the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden falls to the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly … Because we cannot say that Cruz’s actions violated clearly established law, we must affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. C.

Timothy R. Walker, and the Fire and Casualty Insurance Company of Connecticut, Intervening v. Jax Mold & MacHine Limited

72 F.3d 131 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 6, 1995

However, the Court's principle of comparative fault in general tort cases would allow the apportioning of some fault even to an otherwise "immune" non-party employer. … Due to their extensive practical experience in the relevant industry, the district court did not err in finding that Casto and Thornton were qualified to provide information on industry standards, nor did the court abuse

Cheryl Kuslick v. James Roszczewski

419 F. App'x 589 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 2011

Roszczewski summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … unreasonable in light of the clearly established law.

Jason Westerfield v. United States

483 F. App'x 950 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 8, 2012

III Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Westerfield must show, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to him, both that a constitutional right was violated and that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Scott v.

Sharmel Thornton v. Jeff Fray

429 F. App'x 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2011

, it does not reflect the more “particularized sense” in which a right must be clearly established to deny qualified immunity, in light of the different factual situation there presented. … For the same reasons that the officers did not violate clearly established federal law in detaining the plaintiffs during the search, they are entitled to governmental immunity on the plaintiffs’ state-law false imprisonment

Leonard A. Ciak v. City of Louisville, James H. Lasch

47 F.3d 1167 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 1995

Officer Lasch argues he is protected by qualified immunity because Ciak has not established Officer Lasch's conduct violated a clearly established right. 12 This court reviews a district court's qualified immunity holding … Thus, the plaintiff must effectively pass two hurdles when facing a defendant on summary judgment who claims qualified immunity. First, the allegations must "state a claim of violation of clearly established law."

Jane Doe v. Claiborne County, Tennessee

103 F.3d 495 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 26, 1996

The court preliminarily determined, however, that Doe's right to be free from sexual abuse at the hands of a public school teacher was clearly established and that the school "had a clearly established duty to a public school … Because on these facts plaintiff cannot maintain a federal cause of action against these defendants, we have no need to reach the question of qualified immunity, the grounds on which the district court disposed of this claim

Johnson v. Hayden

67 F. App'x 319 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 2003

immunity. … To overcome the investigator’s entitlement to qualified immunity, however, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless disregard for the truth

Cate v. City of Rockwood

241 F. App'x 231 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 20, 2007

Qualified Immunity 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 … established.

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. … As the District Court pointed out, however, the extent to which "an actor will be excused for errors in judgment under (emergency) circumstances is qualified by training and experience he may have, or be expected to have,

Matthew Streater v. Felici M. Courtright

336 F. App'x 470 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

a 7 defendant was protected by qualified immunity. … If it so determined, the court was then required to determine whether the right violated was clearly established. Id.

Schneider v. Franklin Cnty OH

288 F. App'x 247 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 2008

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established. … Turning to the qualified immunity analysis under either exception, determining whether the officers’ conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Usery v. Yates

565 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 1977

A business must meet three tests to qualify for the exemption as a retail or service establishment under Section 13(a)(2). … If so, then Gateway cannot qualify as a retail establishment as far more than 25% of its annual dollar volume of sales consisted of diesel fuel sales.

Figel v. Overton

263 F. App'x 456 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 6, 2008

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. … Thus, at the time of the conduct in question, the constitutionality of the RULPA was clearly established and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Figel’s RULPA claim.