Case law

Regina McCormick v. Miami University

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 10, 2012

Congress has established its own remedial scheme, through § 1983, to address state actors who violate the law. Id. at 733. … Since a public university qualifies as an arm of the state, see Johnson v.

Eesam Arabbo v. City of Burton

689 F. App'x 418 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2017

Government officials who perform “discretionary functions” enjoy qualified immunity from suits relating to their public functions, provided that their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because there is no evidence that Joliat violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, he is entitled to qualified immunity from suits arising from his representation of the

Westside Mothers v. Olszewski

454 F.3d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2006

Finally, Congress did not explicitly foreclose recourse to § 1983 in this instance, nor has it established any remedial scheme sufficiently comprehensive to supplant § 1983. … We held that the district court erred in failing to consider this issue within the framework established by the Supreme Court in Blessing. Id. at 863.

Thomas Jasany v. United States Postal Service

755 F.2d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 28, 1985

That test requires the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case by showing that he belongs to a protected class and was qualified for the position sought, "but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference … qualified handicapped person apart from his handicap, and was rejected under circumstances which gave rise to the inference that his rejection was based solely on his handicap; 2) Once plaintiff establishes his prima facie

Sharon Ranell Grimes v. Mazda North American Operations Ford Motor Company

355 F.3d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 15, 2004

notice to defendants of a potential defect in the seat belt, but not for the purpose of establishing a design defect in the seat belt. … As the driver of the truck and a defendant in the case, evidence that she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol was clearly relevant. It may have caused or contributed to the accident. 2.

Tawana Wilson v. Boyce Wilkins

362 F. App'x 440 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 19, 2010

Wilkins occurred, he is entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right at the time of the incident that would have informed him that he was violating the Constitution. … A court required to rule on the qualified immunity issue must consider whether the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and whether that constitutional right was clearly established.

Vandiver v. Martin

48 F. App'x 517 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 27, 2002

immunity, as they were entitled to judgment on the merits. … The record fails to establish such a claim. VanDiver has no liberty or property interest in his position as an inmate representative on the warden’s forum. See Hewitt v.

LaTonya Meakens v. Michael Benz

515 F. App'x 414 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 2013

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Fourth Amendment right protecting citizens from unreasonable arrest is clearly established law.

Charles Stein v. Christopher Gunkel

43 F.4th 633 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2022

It also determined that the law was not clearly established, as Brawner constituted a sufficient change in the law such that pre-Brawner caselaw could not clearly establish a deliberate indifference claim analyzed under the … Thus, summary judgment was also supported on the alternate ground that Sterling and Gunkel were owed qualified immunity. Id. at *6. This timely appeal followed.

Grudzinski v. Staren

87 F. App'x 508 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 21, 2004

The district court stayed discovery while it decided whether Staren and the other MCO representatives, as government officials, were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages. … The district court then granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding that “it is not necessary to address defendants’ claim of qualified immunity” because “plaintiffs § 1983 denial of due process claim fails on the

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.

Stacey Yerkes v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages for actions that do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, the law on this issue was not clearly established, and all four Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.7 IV.

David Marshall v. City of Farmington Hills

693 F. App'x 417 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2017

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from civil liability if their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The proponent of individual immunity must therefore establish that he acted without malice. Id. at 225.

Meadows v. Thomas

117 F. App'x 397 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The right to be free from “excessively forceful handcuffing” is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes, Kostrzewa v.

United States v. Blackwell

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2006

Second, while Defendant was unable to establish the precise date on which Stephan-Blackwell signed the immunity agreement, Defendant was able to establish the relevant time frame in which Stephan-Blackwell signed the immunity … The Amount of Loss Calculation Was Not Clearly Erroneous. The district court’s determination that the loss amount caused by Defendant’s conduct was $ 908,853.02 was not clearly erroneous.

Garcia v. Dykstra

260 F. App'x 887 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 2008

Smutz is nevertheless entitled to the protection of qualified immunity unless the right he violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. … His decision to conduct the search without this inquiry was a violation of clearly established law.

In Re Kenneth Allen Knight Trust, Debtor. Angela Lynn Brady-Morris Denise Michele Brady v. J. Baxter Schilling, Trustee

303 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 13, 2002

Ann. §§ 386.370, 386.400 (requiring a trust to offer transferable certificates to qualify as a business trust); Morrissey, 296 U.S. at 359 , 56 S.Ct. 289 (requiring transferable certificates of ownership for a trust to qualify … power ... to establish ... uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies.”

John Jones v. Edward Yancy

420 F. App'x 554 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 2011

Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995), we have jurisdiction over appeals from denials of qualified immunity to the extent they raise “purely legal issue[s],” such as what law was “clearly established” at the time the defendant allegedly … The officers do not argue that the facts as alleged by Jones fail to establish a violation of clearly established constitutional law.

Kentucky v. United States Ex Rel. Hangel

759 F.3d 588 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2014

The bar for establishing a jurisdictional requirement is quite high and not to be inferred lightly. … Although a mere loss of profits generally will not qualify as irreparable harm, see Manakee Prof’l Med. Transfer Serv., Inc. v.

Desmond Ricks v. David Pauch

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 13, 2021

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that the official violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established at the time” of the official’s conduct. District of Columbia v. … Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1005–07 (6th Cir. 1999) (recognizing that this right was clearly established as early as 1990).