Case law

Chao v. Double JJ Resort

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 2004

" – which apparently claims to be exempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor is being in the "fun business" – and that it clearly qualifies. … business, to qualify as a "establishment" as used in the amusement and recreational separate establishment it must be: (a) physically separate from establishment exemption, held that:

Gordon v. City of Warren

579 F.2d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 1978

This pleading also relied on qualified immunity of the individual defendants, stating that they acted in their official capacities, in good faith and without ill-will or malice. … The claims against individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 may be subject to dismissal by summary judgment upon further development of the defense of qualified immunity. See Hanna v. Drobnick, supra.

Stolaj v. Holder

577 F.3d 651 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 2009

Berishaj’s testimony clearly implicated the Stolajs in a fraudulent scheme to obtain asylum. … To the extent that the Stolajs attack the IJ’s factual determinations, the Stolajs do not make any arguments that show how the IJ clearly erred. .

Phillip Modrell v. Jon Hayden

436 F. App'x 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2011

(2) whether that right was clearly established. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the law in existence at the time of the incident did not clearly establish that his conduct would violate the Constitution. Brosseau v.

BPNC, Inc. v. Taft

147 F. App'x 525 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2005

In civil suits for money damages pursuant to § 1983, qualified immunity protects State Defendants “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … [we] ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201).

Anthony Sevy v. Philip Barach

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2020

On the First Amendment claim, Barach has demonstrated that Sevy’s asserted First Amendment right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, so Barach is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim … Therefore, Sevy’s First Amendment right was not clearly established, so Barach is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. See Pearson v.

Convertino v. United States Department of Justice

795 F.3d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2015

The Koubriti defendants subsequently filed a § 1983 action against Convertino; their claims were eventually dismissed on the determination that Convertino was entitled to prosecutorial and qualified immunity. … The former Attorney General’s statement did not constitute a grant of immunity to journalists, and his assurances might not outlast his own, now completed, tenure.

Maxine B. Cousin v. Don Sundquist State Election Commission Brook Thompson Hamilton County Election Commission Carolyn Jackson

145 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 1998

The district court’s finding to this effect is not clearly erroneous. … We do not agree that this factor clearly supports a finding of vote dilution under these circumstances. 8.

Gardner v. Nashville Housing Authority

468 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 1972

We held in the Greeneville case that subject matter jurisdiction was established, but that the case should not have proceeded without HUD as an indispensable party. … We think this is clearly a case of federal question jurisdiction.

Richard Kollin, Jr. v. City of Cleveland

557 F. App'x 396 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2014

Disputes of fact may not be appealed by a defendant denied qualified immunity. Harrison v. Ash, 539 F.3d 510, 517 (6th Cir. 2008). … In contrast, we may review the purely legal issue of “whether the plaintiff’s facts, taken at their best, show that the defendant violated clearly established law.” Quigley v.

Louis Haddad v. Sears, Roebuck and Company

526 F.2d 83 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 29, 1976

The doctrine of qualified privilege is part of the established law of Michigan. In Bostetter v. … The facts in the case clearly support the conclusion. In Bacon v.

Mary Patrick Latham v. The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio

395 F.3d 261 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2005

Sovereign Immunity and the ADEA Under the Eleventh Amendment, a State may not be sued in federal court unless it has consented to such a suit or its immunity has been properly abrogated by Congress. … In Kimel , the Court clearly stated that “age is not a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause.” Id. at 83 , 120 S.Ct. 631 .

Morrison v. United States Department of Agriculture

21 F. App'x 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2001

However, the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity is limited by exceptions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 . … Despite Morrison’s arguments to the contrary, a review of his complaint clearly establishes that his claim arises from an activity in which tax liability is assessed and/or collected.

Walsh v. Cuyahoga Cnty

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 2005

Allan was not entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. Walsh’s right to a pre-termination hearing was clearly established by Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985). Mr. … clearly established law.”

United States v. Anthony Medina (91-1852) Nathaniel Wilson (91-1869) Neville King (91-1891/1892)

992 F.2d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 27, 1993

Defendants contend that the court committed reversible error by refusing either to immunize the witnesses or to compel the government to grant the witnesses use immunity. … [T]he question is what is clearly foreseeable or what a defendant is involved with. MR.

Donald L. Mains and Joyce G. Mains v. United States of America, F. E. Gooding v. United States

508 F.2d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 1975

Distributions from Thrills Unlimited must qualify independently, if they qualify at all. … In the case of Section 346(a)(2), qualification depends upon whether plaintiffs can establish that the distributions were “not essentially equivalent to a dividend.”

Evans v. Board of Education Southwestern City School District

425 F. App'x 432 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 23, 2011

Second, we determine “whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. (citations omitted). … ,” and that “the second [and third] prong[s] of the qualified immunity test . . .

Kelly Copen v. United States

3 F.4th 875 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 6, 2021

“Sovereign immunity generally bars claims against the United States without its consent,” but “Congress, through the FTCA, waived this governmental immunity for claims brought” for several types of actions. Kohl v. … The Executive Branch accordingly cannot waive restrictions that are fairly considered to be limits on the waiver of sovereign immunity.

S. Baxter Jones v. City of Detroit, Mich.

20 F.4th 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 2021

The district court denied their request for qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim, which prompted an interlocutory appeal. … Our court reversed and granted qualified immunity to the officers with respect to the excessive-force claims against them. Jones v. City of Detroit, 815 F. App’x 995, 1000 (6th Cir. 2020).

Rothhaupt v. Maiden

144 F. App'x 465 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2005

immunity entitlement, whether the right was clearly established, and whether Dickow’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of that right. … We affirm because the search did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.