Case law

James Paul Doherty, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Southern College of Optometry, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

862 F.2d 570 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 1989

The District Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that he was “otherwise qualified” for participation in the program. … , subject to ‘clearly erroneous’ ... review only.

Schultz v. Sillman

148 F. App'x 396 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2005

Appellate Jurisdiction and Qualified Immunity A district court’s denial of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” … 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

David Little v. City of Morristown, Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2024

Hardeman County, 93 F.4th 919 (6th Cir. 2024), which requires application of a different legal standard to the clearly established prong of qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. … That is because the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry focuses on “whether the officer had fair notice that her conduct was unlawful” based on “the law at the time of the conduct.”

Glowacki v. Howell Public School District

566 F. App'x 451 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2014

As for McDowell, however, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Daniel, denying McDowell qualified immunity and concluding that removing Daniel from class violated his First Amendment right to free expression. … But, because the Supreme Court long ago established this principle, see Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. Sch.

Montgomery v. Bagley

581 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 2009

established federal law. … It explained: [The State] clearly cannot establish that [it] exercised due diligence in procuring this evidence....

Kahlil Lyttle v. Redford Police Officer Riley

524 F. App'x 226 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 29, 2013

Analysis The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Riley also seeks qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s excessive force claim.

Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford

494 F. App'x 535 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 14, 2012

An order denying qualified immunity—though not considered a final judgment—is immediately appealable on the issue of qualified immunity “to the extent that a summary judgment order denies qualified immunity based on a pure … It has long been clearly established in this Circuit that “the Fourth Amendment forbids the unannounced, forcible entry of a dwelling in the absence of exigent circumstances.” United States v.

Jerome L. Williams v. Peter Vidor and Willie Ray

17 F.3d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 1994

V State prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damage liability under § 1983. Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from prison officials only if the officials knew or should have known that they were violating “clearly es *865 tablished statutory or constitutional

Ronald Phillips v. Mike DeWine

841 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 2, 2016

They argued that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Licensure-Immunity Provision and the Civil-Action Provision. … It is a qualified right to certain ‘proceedings and documents filed therein’ and nothing more.” Wood, 759 F.3d at 1092-93 (Bybee, J., dissenting).

Village of Oakwood v. State Bank and Trust Co.

539 F.3d 373 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2008

Section 1821(d) clearly establishes a process for the administrative review of “any claim against a depository institution for which the Corporation is receiver.” 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(6)(A)®. … Ultimately, the Uninsured ' Depositors failed to comply with the clearly delineated procedure for seeking review of their claims arising out of the collapse of Oak-wood.

Lloyd Marks v. Newcourt Credit Group, Inc.

342 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2003

In their initial denial of Marks’s claim for benefits, the plan administrators explained that Marks’s actual termination was a condition precedent to establishing a qualifying termination under the plan. … After defining and establishing the deadline for a “qualifying termination,” the committee concluded that Marks had not suffered a qualifying termination because “the Company had not terminated [his] employment ‘prior to

Sara Batton v. Sandusky Cnty.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 2024

Next, qualified immunity necessitates that Batton allege the violation of a right that was clearly established at the time. … As required at this stage, Batton plausibly alleged Hossler’s violation of a clearly established right. We thus affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Steve Lucsik v. Board of Education of the Brunswick City School District

621 F.2d 841 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 1980

Yet in qualifying the immunity of school board members, the Supreme Court dealt only with the exercise of an unique school board function. … Clearly the Board was acting under color of state law in seeking to enjoin the teachers' strike.

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 27 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).

Martin v. Labelle

7 F. App'x 492 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 27, 2001

Plaintiffs failed even to attempt to identify facts relating to the shooting of Kirk William Martin that would establish a genuine issue of material fact as to legal liability. … immunity cases.

Norman Purnell, Administrator of the Estate of Armstead Land v. City of Akron, John Livers, John Gilbride, Robert Kroah, and Daniel Gorring

977 F.2d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 1992

in not granting them qualified immunity. … If the right involved is not "clearly established" at the time of the official action, a reasonable official cannot have known he was violating a constitutional right, and qualified immunity should be granted.

Barbara Fakhouri v. Ober Gatlinburg, Inc.

821 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 2016

Ober Gatlinburg operates “ski slopes,” “ski trails,” and a “passenger tramway[]” in Tennessee, which means it qualifies as a ski area operator. … Because the resort satisfied all three grounds for immunity, the Ski Area Safety Act bars Fakhouri’s claim.

Ohio Transport, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (Robert L. Moulton, Chairman, Ralph A. Winter and Edward J. Kenealy, Commissioners)

243 F.2d 536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 26, 1957

We think the judgment of the District Court is clearly correct, not only upon the ground stated, but upon other important grounds. … The holding of the Supreme Court of Ohio that the revocation of a common carrier’s permit does not con *539 stitute a penalty or forfeiture is established law in Ohio.

Otte v. Kasich

709 F. App'x 779 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2017

most notably by allowing injunction actions against state officials, see Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), and by allowing money-damages against state officials for violating clearly established … The plaintiffs counter that some of the defendants are not entitled to immunity under Ohio law because they do not qualify as state employees.

Refugio Lugo, Cross-Appellees v. G. William Miller, Cross-Appellants

640 F.2d 823 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 1981

Bull. 117), modifying the requirements which a hospital had to meet to qualify under Sec. 501(c)(3). … As such, it received exemption from federal income taxation not because of any provision in Code Section 501(c)(3), but because of a limited implied immunity. Cf. Massachusetts v.