Case law

Rich v. City of Mayfield Heights

955 F.2d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 1992

To determine if the defendant police officers’ actions violated any clearly established constitutional rights such that they would not be entitled to rely on qualified immunity, it is necessary for the Court to decide (1) … We held that: [T]he rights the district court cites as having been clearly established were not particularized rights as required by Anderson and, thus, were not sufficient to deny the defendants qualified immunity.

John Moody v. Mich. Gaming Control Bd.

871 F.3d 420 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 2017

Therefore, the right was clearly established. … We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on the Fifth Amendment claim, and hold that the right articulated in Moody I was clearly established at the time of the violation. 2.

Patricia MacIntosh v. Ron Clous

69 F.4th 309 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 2023

Whether the Right Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right was “clearly established such ‘that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing … Taken as true, MacIntosh’s allegations plausibly show that Clous is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that Clous’s conduct violated MacIntosh’s First Amendment rights.

Tanya Martin v. City of Broadview Heights

712 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2013

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … The sources of clearly established law to be considered are limited.

Armstrong v. City of Melvindale

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

But where, as here, Defendants do not dispute the facts—they claim instead that the alleged facts do not reflect a violation of clearly established law—“a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity . . . is … right was clearly established.”

Charles Austin v. Redford Township Police Depart

690 F.3d 490 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

Qualified Immunity on Austin’s Excessive Force Claims “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … Page 7 force against a subdued suspect was clearly established.

Pray v. City of Sandusky

49 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 1995

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate either on the basis that the right allegedly violated was not at the time “clearly established,” or if “clearly established,” was one that a “reasonable” person in the defendant … Thus, when a defendant moves for summary • judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish that a reasonable officer in the

Jones v. Byrnes

585 F.3d 971 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

protection of qualified immunity. … The first question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff *976 has established a prima facie case of a constitutional violation.

Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services

724 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2013

rights were not clearly established as of March 26, 2002. … Clearly Established Rights We now turn to whether the law was clearly established on March 26, 2002, that a social worker could not seize children from their home without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or another recognized

Patsy Carolyn POE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnie HAYDON, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

853 F.2d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 1988

Poe contends that the burden is on the defendants to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity; the plaintiff has no burden whatsoever of showing that the rights at issue were “clearly established” at the time … IV In rejecting the appellants’ claim to qualified immunity, the district court concluded that the appellants “may have violated the plaintiff's clearly established rights and hence are not qualifiedly immune.”

Raymond Barton v. Sheldon Neeley

114 F.4th 581 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

If the public-official defendant did not violate a constitutional right, or if he did but the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, then the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, the court denied qualified immunity because it was “clearly established that the First Amendment protect[s] a citizen’s decision both as to what to say and  No. 23-2089 Barton v.

Bishop v. Hackel

636 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 1, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional … a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.

Rodriguez v. Passinault

637 F.3d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 2011

Garner[, 471 U.S. 1 (1985),] provides a ‘clearly established’ right that fulfills the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.” Id. at 347. … Thus, Pierce is entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 878.

Neil Morgan v. Fairfield Cty., Ohio

903 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

The district court was correct to conclude that the law was not clearly established, so that the claims against the individual officers failed on qualified immunity grounds. … Specifically, the court held, qualified immunity was appropriate because even if intruding onto the curtilage violated the Fourth Amendment, it was not clearly established that such an action was a violation at the time of

Chana Wiley v. City of Columbus

36 F.4th 661 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2022

The qualified immunity question turns on “(1) whether the officer violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of … “When federal qualified immunity and Ohio state-law immunity under Ohio Rev.

Victor Smith v. City of Troy, Ohio

874 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 2017

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity and, thus, is shielded from suit under § 1983 if his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable official would … Osting is not entitled to qualified immunity for this use of force.

David B. Klein v. Paul Long, Blackman Township Police Officer Phillip Rogers, Blackman Township Police Sergeant

275 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 2001

Qualified Immunity In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … We need not reach, then, the second part of the qualified immunity analysis delineated in Saucier — whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established.

Vakilian v. Shaw

335 F.3d 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 2003

Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within the scope of their official duties from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would … now ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of Shaw’s action.

Robert Andrews v. Hickman County, Tennessee

700 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 3, 2012

Thus, qualified immunity applies “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (citing Anderson v. … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis requires us to ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s conduct.

Andrea Miller v. Woodston Maddox

866 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 2017

Lastly, we address Maddox’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions unless (1) the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at time of the incident