Case law

Doe v. Magoffin County Fiscal Court

174 F. App'x 962 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 13, 2006

This court has previously held that “no rational individual could believe that sexual abuse by a state actor is constitutionally permissible under the Due Process Clause” and that a citizen has “a clearly established right … Salyer is therefore entitled to qualified official immunity under Kentucky law.

Grinter v. Knight

532 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2008

Belt available for questioning appear to allege that defendants failed to follow established procedures. Failing to follow proper procedures is insufficient to establish an infringement of a liberty interest. Olim v. … Furthermore, “[p]rison officials clearly have discretion under state law to deny a prisoner future good time.” Id. (citing Ky.Rev.Stat. § 197.045(1)).

Josephine CARVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee

869 F.2d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 9, 1989

The Meyer and Loving decisions, however, did not clearly foreshadow that an individual had a constitutionally protected right to marry. … It was not until Zablocki in 1978 that the right to marriage was firmly established.

Knight Newspapers, Inc. v. United States of America and Edward L. Baker, Individually and as Postmaster at Detroit, Michigan

395 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 1968

or where his determination is clearly wrong. … These allegations do not establish that the Postmaster’s determination disallowing appellant’s claim constituted an abuse of discretion or an exercise of discretion that was clearly wrong.

George Marvaso v. Richard Sanchez

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2024

of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Although we have discretion to choose which prong of the qualified immunity inquiry to consider first, the parties here agree that it was clearly established at the time of Sanchez’s alleged conduct that “[p]olice officers

United States v. William T. Wuliger

981 F.2d 1497 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 1992

Walder was the first case to establish an impeachment exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. … But this testimony doesn’t establish that the defendant knew of this fact. In terms of what the defendant knew, Mr.

Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Baker

815 F.2d 422 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 1987

Forsyth applies only when a party is immune from suit, not when the alleged immunity is only from liability. See Marrical v. The Detroit News, Inc., 805 F.2d 169, 172-73 (6th Cir.1986). … The issue here is transfer of liability, not entitlement not to be sued, and the transfer issue is clearly reviewable on appeal from a final judgment determining the merits of the case.

Thurmond v. Sears

116 F. App'x 681 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 22, 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 … immunity, and (2) the issue appealed did not concern which facts the parties might be able to prove, but rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of clearly established law.

Ryan v. Hazel Park

279 F. App'x 335 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2008

Constitutional Claims Government officials are immune from liability in civil suits unless a clearly established constitutional right has been violated. Hills v. … If the court concludes a constitutional right has been violated, it must then determine whether the right was clearly established. Id.

Theresa Ely v. Dearborn Heights School District

655 F. App'x 495 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2016

The district court denied Thieken and Bartold’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Finally, the district court concluded that Ely’s First Amendment rights in this particular context were clearly established at the time the reprimand letters were issued. This appeal followed.

Darrell S. Jones v. City of Upper Arlington, Paul Schaumburg, and Michael Nagode

986 F.2d 1421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 1993

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), the Supreme Court further defined the standard for qualified immunity: 12 [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been "clearly established" … For this reason, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment for the officers on the basis of qualified immunity.

Gene Raymond Bell, Jr. v. City of Southfield, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 16, 2024

The officers invoked qualified immunity, which we granted on the latter claim based on video footage that clearly showed Bell was resisting arrest when officers tased him. Bell v. … After discovery, the officers again asserted qualified immunity in a motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the officers’ motion, and the officers once again appealed.

United States v. John P. Calandra

465 F.2d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 27, 1972

on the ground that he had not received proper notice pertaining to the immunity proceedings. … Upon consideration, we are of the view that the district judge was clearly correct in finding that the *1227 warrant utterly failed to establish probable cause to search Royal Machine and Tool Company for gambling paraphernalia

Myers v. United States

17 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 1994

The second category of regulations, however, does not establish safety standards for the nation’s mines; it merely establishes a means by which the government can monitor compliance with the first category of regulations. … Snider, 855 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn.Ct. *901 App.1993), in which the plaintiff tried to establish "per se” liability by proving that school officials had violated established school board policy.

Eric Sharp, Representative of the Estate of Earle Chadwick Sharp, Deceased v. United States

401 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 16, 2005

When determining whether the United States is immune from suit based on the discretionary-function exception, we engage in a two-step analysis. … United States, Department of the Army, a case decided before the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Gau-bert, we explained: *444 Because § 2680 clearly limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts, a plaintiff can invoke

Cynthia Brown v. David Yost

133 F.4th 725 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2025

Yost faulted the petition summary for myriad issues, including failing to convey clearly the venues in which public officials could be sued and using a title that suggested removing qualified immunity would protect citizens … Basically, Yost rejected the title because he did not agree that removing qualified immunity would protect citizens’ constitutional rights. This is the very definition of editorial control.

Pecola Campbell v. Ronnie Bastin

590 F. App'x 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 29, 2014

It held that the record did not support a clearly established constitutional violation and thus, the police defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The Estate timely appealed. II. … Alternatively, an official is entitled to qualified immunity even if he violates a federal right so long as the right was not “clearly established,” meaning that a reasonable person in the official’s position would not have

Michael Niewolak v. City of Highland Park, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officers from suit unless they violated a right that was clearly established when they acted. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018). … right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Buchanan v. Knoxville & O. R. Co.

71 F. 324 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 1895

W. 1045 , as establishing a different doctrine. We do not understand that to be the effect of the decision in that case. … But if the intent clearly appears the court is bound, without evasion, to give it effect.

United States v. Daniel J. Gleason, Individually and D/B/A Tax Toolbox, Inc., and My Tax Man, Inc.

432 F.3d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 29, 2005

His claim that his methods are “audit-proof’ misleads customers because no tax arrangement is immune from IRS scrutiny, and in fact the IRS has begun auditing many Tax Toolbox customers. … Gleason systematically overstated the tax benefits of a home-based business without warning of well-established limitations in the tax code.