Case law

Randle Griffin v. Mary Berghuis

563 F. App'x 411 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Such a right is clearly established only if “existing precedent ...

Jess Burdine v. Sandusky County, Ohio

524 F. App'x 164 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Sandusky County proper, we ask, “(1) whether, considering the allegations in a light most favorable to the party injured, a constitutional right has been violated, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.”

Ernst v. Rising

427 F.3d 351 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2005

"[E]rrors of law" invariably establish an abuse of discretion, United States v. … By finding that the Eleventh Amendment is applicable even where the impetus for immunity is clearly not implicated, the majority impermissibly broadens the ambit of the amendment.

In Re Mayer Morganroth, Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor v. Frank Fitzsimmons

718 F.2d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 1983

Even immunized testimony is subject to prosecution on the ground of perjury. 18 U.S.C. § 6002 . … U.S. 486 , 71 S.Ct. 818 , it is equally clear that a witness’ “say so” does not by itself establish the hazard of incrimination.

Terrance Drew v. Michael Milka

555 F. App'x 574 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 18, 2014

immunity.” … Therefore, the qualified immunity doctrine does not prevent Plaintiff from proceeding on his excessive-force claim.

Carlton L. Owens v. William Brock, Secretary of Labor

860 F.2d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 10, 1988

. § 8101 et seq. constitute “adversary adjudications” for the purpose of qualifying as appropriate proceedings for the application of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. § 504 . … The EAJA, by permitting a plaintiff to recover attorney fees from the United States, constitutes a waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity.

Pamela Graves v. The United States of America

872 F.2d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 1989

Similarly, the district court’s determination regarding the adequacy of the warnings is not clearly erroneous. … In the present case, there was no policy established by higher authority regarding the type of warnings needed at the site of a closed lock.

Shannon Roth v. Matthew Viviano

704 F. App'x 548 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2017

the Fourth Amendment is not clearly established.” … Because there is no clearly established right to be free from such conduct, a defendant acting as a medical-emergency responder would be entitled to qualified immunity defense.

Neileigh Regets v. City of Plymouth

568 F. App'x 380 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2014

right; and (2) the right was clearly established. … “A [police officer] is entitled to qualified immunity” on a false arrest and false imprisonment claim “if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established

Liberto v. Shelby County

115 F. App'x 794 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 20, 2004

In civil damage actions arising out of government officials’ performance of discretionary functions, the officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … If the answer is yes, then the second step is to determine whether the right is so ‘clearly established’ that a ‘reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” Brennan v.

Kathy Bonds v. C.W. Cox H.J. Harris and D.R. Aldridge

20 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 1994

The defendants moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) qualified immunity; and (2) failure to state a Section 1983 claim, because the search warrant was legally sufficient and Bonds failed to show more than ordinary … Under these standards, Bonds has failed to establish that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the house at 4174 Dunn Avenue.

Mills v. Killebrew

765 F.2d 69 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 11, 1985

VI, Sec. 5 provides in part that "the [Michigan] Supreme Court shall by general rules establish, modify, amend and simplify the practice and procedure in all courts of [Michigan]." Moreover, Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. … As was just discussed, no clearly valid statute or case law would apprise the mediators of their alleged lack of jurisdiction.

Ben Fry v. Ron Robinson

678 F. App'x 313 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity For a plaintiff to meet its burden to show that a government official is not entitled to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that (1) the facts, when taken in the light most favorable … Fry therefore failed to establish that qualified immunity does not apply to the malicious prosecution - 13 - Case No. 16-3498, Fry v. Robinson claim.

Srisavath v. City of Brentwood

115 F. App'x 820 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 2004

Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Regarding the second prong, the constitutional right at issue here is clearly established.

United States v. Modesto Diaz

25 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 1994

Formal education is not always necessary to qualify an expert; practical skill and experience may suffice. Ibid. … Because an alert by a properly-trained and reliable dog establishes probable cause, we will uphold the district court’s decision here unless its findings as to Dingo’s training and reliability are clearly erroneous.

Charles Schindler, and Mary Schindler, Individually and as Next Friend of Karl Michael Schindler v. United States

661 F.2d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 9, 1981

In licensing and allowing manufacture distribution and sale of Orimune utilizing Sabin poliovirus strains without data having been submitted to the Surgeon General which would have established that such strains were free … Michigan’s public-private duty distinction is clearly a vestige of governmental immunity insofar as it imposes no duty, hence no liability, on a governmental unit for obligations which are deemed duties to the public.

Shirley Ann Lehman Gold Ribbon Limited Partnership v. Wayne F. Wilke, Judge of the Probate Division of Common Pleas for Hamilton County

72 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 6, 1995

72 F.3d 129 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished … The district court granted summary judgment to Judge Wilke on qualified immunity grounds, determining that a reasonable jurist in Judge Wilke's position would not have known he was violating the appellants' constitutional

Westside Mothers v. Haveman

289 F.3d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2002

Whether the suit is barred under sovereign immunity The district court next held that the plaintiffs’ suit is foreclosed by doctrines of sovereign immunity because Michigan is the “real party at interest” in the suit and … First, the provisions were clearly intended to benefit the putative plaintiffs, children who are eligible for the screening and treatment services. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A).

Summerland v. County of Livingston

240 F. App'x 70 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 2007

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Hence, the Court need not proceed to the second inquiry—“whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known”— under the qualified immunity standard.6

Dallas Cobbs v. George Pramstaller

475 F. App'x 575 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2012

“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 … a clearly established constitutional right.