Case law

United States v. Moss

69 F. App'x 724 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 11, 2003

Her testimony was subject to immunity and therefore was not protected by the Fifth Amendment. … The factual basis clearly recites that “during the course of the conspiracy” Moss obtained cocaine from Sexton and Legg.

Stew Farm, Ltd. v. Natural Resources Conservation Service

767 F.3d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2014

As to the declaratory relief against the NRCS, the district court concluded that STEW Farm “failed to meet its burden of establishing a waiver of sovereign immunity under which its claims against [NRCS] can be brought” because … Page 7 the regulations meet the goals stated in (A), (B), & (C) because the “to the maximum extent practicable” language clearly vests discretion with the Secretary.

Angelo Fears v. John Kasich

845 F.3d 231 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 2016

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings. … The district court did not clearly err in its factual findings, and the district court correctly concluded that Defendants have established good cause for the protective order.

Melissa Yatsko v. Dean Graziolli

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 6, 2021

Once Graziolli raised qualified immunity, Yatsko bore the burden of showing both that Graziolli’s conduct violated the Constitution and that the violation was clearly established. … the violation at issue was clearly established.

Estate of Arthur H. McCoy Deceased, Robert McCoy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

809 F.2d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 23, 1987

The executor contends that the purpose of amending § 2032A(b)(l) was clearly to expand eligibility for favorable tax treatment by liberalizing the definition of “qualified real property.” … Thus, the amendment enlarged the definition by describing a use that clearly qualified before the amendment (use by the decedent) as well as a use that qualified for the first time under the amendment (use by a member of

Jordan v. Murphy

145 F. App'x 513 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 2, 2005

Qualified immunity is available if, despite a constitutional violation, the right was not clearly established at the time of the defendants’ actions. See Saucier v. … worker would not know she was violating clearly established law.

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).

United States v. Kasler Electric Company, Inc., Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies

123 F.3d 341 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 1997

In these circumstances, we must implement the congressional intent to provide a single, uniquely qualified forum for the resolution of contractual disputes.”) (footnote omitted); Quality Tooling, Inc. v. … Nevertheless, Easier did not establish a genuine dispute as to a material fact.

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.

Brian Williams v. United States

875 F.3d 803 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 15, 2017

Because binding circuit precedent establishes that Williams necessarily qualified for the enhancement under the ACCA elements clause, he is not entitled to relief. … But when binding precedent clearly establishes that a violent felony used to enhance the movant’s sentence under the ACCA qualifies as a predicate offense under a separate provision of the ACCA, like the elements clause,

Shannon Blick v. Ann Arbor Pub. Sch. Dist.

105 F.4th 868 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 2024

Issue Three: Section 1983 has a qualified-immunity defense that limits a plaintiff’s ability to obtain damages from state officials. … And we will consider only the First Amendment questions on the merits, not any qualified-immunity defense that might have been raised.

Brown v. Neeb

644 F.2d 551 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 1981

A federal court’s power under the Supremacy Clause to override conflicting state laws and/or private agreements is well established. See e. g. Swann v. … In Teamsters , the Court held that a bona fide seniority system was immune to attack under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even if it perpetuated past discrimination.

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.

Leonard v. Hoover

76 F. App'x 55 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 17, 2003

The court also held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … The official must have acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, and the alleged wrongdoing must be objectively harmful enough to establish a constitutional violation. Hudson v.

Ramon Ward v. Wayne Cnty., Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 2025

“A public official is entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights … constitutional rights were clearly established at the time the violation occurred.

John Stahl v. Phil Czernik

496 F. App'x 621 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 2012

Stahl sued and the district court denied Czernik’s request for qualified immunity. Qualified immunity was warranted, however, because there was probable cause to arrest Stahl even in light of the omitted information. … An official is entitled to qualified immunity when he is performing a discretionary duty, provided that his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

United States v. McMurray

653 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 2011

We must consider only the facts necessarily admitted by the defendant in pleading guilty even if we are forced “to feign agnosticism about clearly knowable facts.” … Because the documents do not establish that McMurray necessarily pleaded guilty to a section of the Tennessee aggravated-assault statute qualifying as a “violent felony,” McMurray’s conviction does not qualify as a predicate

Amanda Caton v. Jacob Salamon

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 2025

Qualified immunity “protects all but the 2 Plaintiffs argue that Johnson v. … Kline as a case clearly establishing this principle.

Clinton R. Prather v. City of Louisville, Douglas Hamilton, Steve Cambron, and Robert Adams

85 F.3d 629 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 10, 1996

Allen, 950 F.2d 338, 341 (6th Cir.1991), 8 "A government official enjoys qualified immunity if his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal 'statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … of Harlow. * * * [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been 'clearly established' in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must

Tallman v. Elizabethtown Police Department

167 F. App'x 459 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 23, 2006

. *462 Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for actions taken within their official discretion insofar as these actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Furthermore, even if Bland’s actions had violated Lee’s Fourth Amendment rights, the right in question was not clearly established so as to preclude the application of qualified immunity.