Case law

James England v. City of Columbus, Ohio

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2023

a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. … Clearly Established Law Defendants also argue that the district court erred in holding that England’s right to be free from excessive force was clearly established.

Cameron v. Children's Hospital Medical Center

131 F.3d 1167 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 1997

omitted), as required for immunity to attach. … While he is acting as a security guard, he is clearly not a state employee.

Nair v. Oakland Cnty

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2006

Kentucky, 314 F.3d 262, 265 (6th Cir. 2002) (“We must therefore address the jurisdictional [Eleventh Amendment] question that clearly exists, even though it was not addressed by the court below.”); Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish … After all, Steel Co.’s rule is premised on a court’s lack of power to reach the merits without establishing its jurisdiction.

Sanford J. Berger v. Samuel R. Pierce

933 F.2d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 1991

In Central Claims, the district judge drew an analogy to cases analyzing the immunity of fiscal agents under the Medicare Act, which hold that such agents are immune from suit for activities within the scope of the authority … New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720 , 735 n. 11, 102 S.Ct. 1373 , 1383 n. 11, 71 L.Ed.2d 580 (1982), involving the immunity of federal fiscal agents from state taxes, are not relevant to a determination of fiscal agents’ immunity to

Stephen Graham and Brett Lohrke v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, University of Louisville, Robert Weber, and Bill Olson

804 F.2d 953 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 6, 1986

The appellants must establish both of these elements in order to sustain their claims. III. … Graham also has failed to establish state action under the second alternative test.

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.

Marilyn Johnson v. City of Memphis

770 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 27, 2014

But plaintiffs must offer more to establish a Title VII disparate-impact violation. … Cf. id. at 1103 (holding that “the trial court was not clearly erroneous in accepting . . .

Estate of Burks v. Ross

438 F.2d 230 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 18, 1971

It has been clearly held in Howard v. Lyons, 360 U.S. 593, 594 , 79 S.Ct. 1331 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1454 (1959), the companion case to Barr v. … The *232 statute grants legislative immunity to these government employees. Barr v. Matteo, supra, involved immunity granted by the courts to all government officials. . Spalding v.

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

Rowls v. Weaver

24 F. App'x 453 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 7, 2001

He essentially alleged that the defendants abused their state authority and violated state established procedures when they improperly denied his application for leave to appeal from his 1997 state conviction for criminal … Hence, he clearly sought to have this court review the state court proceedings, even though his intent to do so was thinly veiled by nominal allegations of constitutional violations.

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.

David Little v. City of Saginaw, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 2025

That leaves the question whether Little’s Fourth Amendment rights (as to the entry) were “clearly established in light of the specific context of the case.” Hayden v. Green, 640 F.3d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 2011). … The district court was right to deny qualified immunity on this claim. B.

Danny Roberson v. Darrell Wynkoop

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2021

“We analyze whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity using two steps: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time … Because Wynkoop’s actions did not violate clearly established law and because we do not have the benefit of adequate briefing from either party, we need not address the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis here

Edward Hays v. Aaron Bolton

488 F. App'x 971 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 18, 2012

An unpublished case not yet in existence cannot possibly supply the “clearly established” constitutional right an officer must violate to disqualify himself of governmental immunity. … , and is protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 2.

Jessie Harrison v. State of Michigan

722 F.3d 768 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2013

Sovereign Immunity The district court correctly held that the State, MDOC, and the state parole board were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. … Page 5 It is well established that § 1983 does not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment, see Quern v.

Floyd Jennings v. Brent Bradley

419 F. App'x 594 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2011

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

Philip Apsey v. Chester Township, OH

608 F. App'x 335 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2015

Because no genuine disputes of material fact exist concerning Apsey’s arrest and prosecution, this court may address the purely legal question of whether the undisputed facts give rise to a violation of clearly established … Qualified Immunity as to Brickman A.

United States v. Goodman

519 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 17, 2008

The government bears the burden of establishing that a conviction qualifies for an ACCA sentence enhancement.” United States v. Lancaster, 501 F.3d 673, 675 (6th Cir.2007); see also United States v. … This statement, if true, establishes only that Goodman or the victim took the gun when they left.

Raymond v. Moyer

501 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2007

Raymond alleges that he was qualified for admission and submitted all the necessary paperwork, but that on May 25, 2005, he was informed that the Ohio Supreme Court had denied his application for admission without examination … If Raymond plans to apply again for admission to practice law in Ohio without examination, and is denied, he can likely establish standing to bring a general challenge to the rules and practices of the Ohio Supreme Court,

Donovan Savage v. City of Memphis

620 F. App'x 425 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2015

It found that Archie was entitled to qualified immunity because his actions were reasonable and that he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. … Plaintiffs point to only one case, Garner, to show that Archie’s actions violated a clearly established right. But Garner hurts rather than helps their case.