Case law

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.

Vandiver v. Hardin County Board of Education

925 F.2d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 1991

Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 , 60 S.Ct. 900, 903 , 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940), provide *932 that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. … CONCLUSION The parties on appeal also raise various arguments regarding qualified immunity for the defendant officials and sovereign immunity for the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

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.

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.

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.

Schack v. City of Taylor

177 F. App'x 469 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 17, 2006

II We review the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds de novo, Scicluna v. … City of Taylor clearly-established law. See Estate of Owensby v. City of Cincinnati, 414 F.3d 596, 602 (6th Cir. 2005).

John D. MacDonald and Patricia MacDonald v. The Village of Northport, Michigan

164 F.3d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 11, 1999

The court concluded that the Burford doctrine and the Eleventh Amendment, “both as separate and distinct grounds, but clearly grounds together,” gave the court “insufficient jurisdiction.” … Eleventh Amendment Immunity The district court also reasoned that this case was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Whether Eleventh Amendment immunity applies is a question of law requiring de novo review. See Franks v.

Arthur Krause, Administrator of the Estate of Allison Krause, Deceased v. James Rhodes, Governor of the State of Ohio, Elaine B. Miller, Administratrix of the Estate of Jeffrey Glenn Miller, Deceased v. James Rhodes, Individually and as Governor of the State of Ohio, Sarah Scheuer, Administratrix of the Estate of Sandra Lee Scheuer, Deceased v. James Rhodes, Governor of the State of Ohio

471 F.2d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 1972

Constantin established any broad rule of personal immunity for state officials acting to quell civil disorders. … Sec. 5923.37, that statute, rather than the common law immunity described above, would have governed the question of their potential liability for those acts. As clearly prescribed by O.R.C.

Vernon Dahl, III v. Jermaine Kilgore

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2021

The court further held that, because Dahl’s right was clearly established at the time of the encounter, Kilgore was not entitled to qualified immunity. … The relevant question of law in a qualified immunity case is “whether the law clearly proscribed the actions [of] the defendant” and “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established

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.

United States v. Michael Gabor

750 F.3d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 30, 2014

In this bribery case, I agree with my colleagues that the ethics reports showing disclosure of Dimora’s gifts were clearly admissible, but I disagree that their exclm sion was “harmless error.” … As appellate judges, we are not qualified to stack inference on inference for a jury. It is our job to preserve trial by jury and leave such subjective conclusions to the jury.

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.

Sandra A. Boddie v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. Geraldo Rivera Charles C. Thompson and Maravilla Production Company, Inc.

881 F.2d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 1989

The 1986 amendment to section 2511(2) clearly affected “substantive rights and liabilities.” … At the same time, newsgathering does “qualify for First Amendment protection.” Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681 , 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2656 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972).

Ammex, Inc. v. John Durant

381 F. App'x 482 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 2010

Governmental officials performing discretionary functions are generally granted qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.”

Crockett Stevens v. Donald Bordenkircher, Warden, Kentucky State Prison, Respondents

746 F.2d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 1984

Clearly, cross-examination concerning the partiality of a witness is always relevant. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 , 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); United States v. … Moreover, petitioner was not permitted to elicit from Bennett the fact that he was granted immunity from prosecution for Smith’s murder.

Vaughn McCline v. David Roose

351 F. App'x 997 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 2009

clearly established constitutional rights. … Thus, Roose’s case does not fall within the category of cases open to interlocutory appeal based on qualified immunity.

United States v. Carpenter

360 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 9, 2004

These findings were not clearly erroneous. 31 b. … immunity protected an officer conducting a warrantless search that was undertaken because of exigent circumstances.

Graham v. Hawk

59 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 1995

59 F.3d 170 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished … Claims that lack an arguable or rational basis in law include claims for which the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist; claims that lack

75 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 386, 73 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,300 Charles A. Kline v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Craven Crowell, Johnny H. Hayes, and William H. Kennoy

128 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 11, 1998

Thus, the district court's conclusion that Kline failed to establish pretext is clearly erroneous. 90 As the Supreme Court's opinion in Hicks indicates, a factfinder is permitted to infer discrimination upon a determination … Thus, the district court's conclusion that Kline failed to establish pretext is clearly erroneous." (Maj. op. at 351.)

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.