Case law

Fletcher Small v. Officer Brock

963 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2020

Of course, our holding does not mean that Small’s right was clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity. But we need not resolve the issue of qualified immunity in this appeal. … But even if you doubted this precedent, there’s little doubt that the alleged constitutional violation here wasn’t clearly established and thus that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Michael Washington v. City of Cincinnati

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2026

Because Washington’s protected property interest was not “clearly established,” Long’s claim of qualified immunity prevails. A. How to recognize a clearly established right is well understood. … Rather than awarding qualified immunity unless it was obvious that Long violated Washington’s clearly established rights, the majority opinion would deny qualified immunity unless it was obvious that Long did not do so.

Cochran v. Gilliam

656 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2011

a violation of clearly established law.” … Because the subject of the interlocutory appeal is limited to the pure legal issue of whether the facts alleged constitute a violation of clearly established law, “a defendant seeking qualified immunity must be willing to

Stephen Hopkins v. Anthony Nichols

37 F.4th 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

These errors, perhaps understandably, led the district court not to discuss the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity as it pertained to the seizure of Mrs. Hopkins. … Hopkins may have amounted to a clearly established constitutional violation. For those reasons, we conclude that the district court properly denied qualified immunity to defendants for the alleged seizure of Mrs.

DeShawn Anderson-Santos v. Kent County, Mich.

94 F.4th 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 29, 2024

Page 7 clearly-established constitutional violation based on his version of the facts, fails to present us with a legal issue and relegates his claim to a factual dispute over which we cannot exercise jurisdiction. … of clearly established law.”

Robert Sean Reed v. Campbell Cnty., Ky.

80 F.4th 734 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2023

Clearly Established Inquiry To satisfy the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, the officers’ unconstitutional conduct must violate clearly established law. Williams, 9 F.4th at 437. … Page 21 First, cases where we have found qualified immunity cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation by negative inference.

Terry A. Veney v. Michael Hogan Carol Hernandez Frank D. Fleischer and Martha Knicely

70 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 1996

For a law to be “clearly established” in the context of qualified immunity, [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. … The trial court need not deny a defendant the right to qualified immunity simply because a complaint adequately alleges violation of clearly established law.

Arnette Rodgers v. 36th District Court

529 F. App'x 642 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2013

Katz, the Supreme Court established a two-step inquiry for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … clearly established law at the time that it was committed.

Jordan Venema v. Fred West

133 F.4th 625 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2025

After concluding that the Complaint sufficiently alleged that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, the district court determined that DeAngelo was not entitled to qualified immunity, because clearly established … Violation of a Clearly Established Right Having concluded that the Estate sufficiently pleaded that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis

David M. Mumford v. Joseph Zieba, Judge, in His Official and Individual Capacities Lorain County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division

4 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 1993

Moreover, Judge Zieba argued that he was protected from personal liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established on January 3, 1989 that a chief referee of a domestic relations … Steingut, 829 F.2d 317 (2d Cir.1987), granted state officials qualified immunity when they refused to reappoint a plaintiff to the position of workers’ compensation referee because federal law was not clearly established

Aldini v. Johnson

609 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2010

Bodine was entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the “clearly established” inquiry, the question is whether the right was “so ‘clearly established’ that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Roger Gillispie v. Miami Twp., Ohio

18 F.4th 909 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2021

“[T]he precise scope of our appellate jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity is whether ‘the plaintiff’s version of facts demonstrates a violation of clearly established rights.’” … one and two of the qualified immunity inquiry.”

Laura Toms and Ira Chaiffetz v. Bob Taft Reginald J. Wilkinson Anthony J. Brigano Lawrence Belskis Mark Clark

338 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2003

The second part of the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established such that reasonable officials would know that their conduct violated the right. … Although courts engaging in qualified immunity analyses often consider only case law when determining whether the right at issue was clearly established, the Supreme Court in Hope also considered a Department of Justice report

Nita Gordon v. Keith Bierenga

20 F.4th 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2021

Under the familiar test for qualified immunity, a public official is immune from suit unless the plaintiff establishes: (1) a constitutional violation; and (2) that the right at issue was “clearly established” when the event … Even when a defendant violates a plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the right at issue was “clearly established[.]” Id. (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232).

Patricia Jackson v. Andreas Schultz Richard Cadoura

429 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 2005

On September 3, 2004, the district court denied the EMTs’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court held that Jackson alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … To defeat qualified immunity, Jackson must show a violation of a constitutional right, and that the constitutional right was clearly established. Brosseau v.

Paul W. Cagle Guy R. Epperson Steven A. McCullom Terry Norwood and Jeffrey L. Parker v. Dan Gilley

957 F.2d 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 1992

Standard of Review Gilley appeals the denial of his motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. A district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appealable. Mitchell v. … Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from civil damages liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Torre S. Crockett Dushon L. Greene v. Cumberland College Michael B. Colegrove K. David Kersey, City of Williamsburg, Kentucky Don Hamlin

316 F.3d 571 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 2003

Qualified Immunity In civil suits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages, qualified immunity protects a public official from being sued as long as the official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … , Hamlin would be entitled to qualified immunity unless a reasonable officer would know that Hamlin’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established federal right.

Daniel Simmonds v. Genesee County

682 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2012

To satisfy the first Saucier prong and establish a constitutional violation to defeat the officers’ claim of qualified immunity, Simmonds “is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly … the violation of the constitutional right was clearly established. 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Calvin B. Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., Debbie Miller

380 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 2004

Qualified immunity provides “that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The court held that the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was not proper because the officers had violated Drummond’s clearly established rights. Id. at 1062.

Cody Jones v. City of Elyria, Ohio

947 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2020

Standard Of Review For Qualified Immunity. Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability for official acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Walker v. … As this collection of rights is clearly established, the two officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the wrongful-arrest claim. b. Mitchell.