Case law

Noy v. Travis

339 F. App'x 515 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 13, 2009

Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in ruling that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … When applying the qualified immunity test, plaintiffs have the burden of showing that a right is clearly established. Barrett v. Steubenville City Sch., 388 F.3d 967, 970 (6th Cir. 2004).

John Thomas Devine v. M.T. Pickering, James Eure, Coleman Davis, and Ted Denny

959 F.2d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 8, 1992

At the hearing, the judge refused altogether to hear defense arguments concerning qualified immunity. Defendants now appeal. … "If the undisputed facts show that defendant's conduct, as a matter of law, did not violate clearly established legal rights, then the district court must grant the defendant summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

Larry Lucas, D/B/A Lucas Towing, Sottile's Inc., D/B/A S.T.A.R. Towing James Sottile v. Monroe County Carl Van Wert, Sheriff Ronald Cole, Undersheriff Darwin Paz, Captain Tom Hoffman, Captain

203 F.3d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 2000

NLRB, 639 F.2d 307, 309 (6th Cir. 1981)). 7 Defendants on appeal also briefly argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims on the basis that, at the time in question, "there was … Plaintiffs respond that Defendants are not immune because the First Amendment law on retaliation and political patronage was clearly established at the time of Defendants' misconduct, so that Defendants knew or should have

Kimberly Bell v. Cumberland Cty., Tenn.

665 F. App'x 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 2016

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Once a qualified immunity defense has been raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of overcoming it by demonstrating both (1) that the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly

Sharon R. Pfennig v. Household Credit Services, Inc., and Mbna America Bank, N.A.

295 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2002

In such an instance, the fee clearly is imposed incident to the extension of credit. See 15 U.S.C. § 1605 (a). … Thus, Defendants assert that they are entitled to immunity under 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (f).

United States v. McFalls

592 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 2010

The Government’s final position is that even if ABHAN does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence, the indictment establishes that McFalls committed a crime of violence. … Thus, the indictment does not establish that McFalls committed a crime of violence for sentencing-enhancement purposes. VI.

United States Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

818 F.2d 545 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 1987

If there are more than one qualified volunteer^) than required those qualified volunteers having the highest seniority, by service computation date, will be given first preference. … We recognize that the proposals at issue here are not as clearly worded as those set forth in National Cemetery.

United States v. Steven L. Baker

458 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2006

Simmons’s testimony established that he was an “other qualified witness” as to the relevant records, and the district court did not err in admitting this evidence. B. … There, the Court was not dealing with an alleged hearsay rule violation, but its sweeping "all evidentiary ruling” statement rather clearly means what it says.

United States v. Malik Farrad

895 F.3d 859 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2018

That is clearly what happened in the testimony at issue here. … Having not been raised in Farrad’s pro se motion, Farrad’s first two arguments clearly qualify only for plain-error review. United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724, 739 (6th Cir. 2006).

Moseley v. Peabody Coal Co.

769 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 1985

Clearly, if Moseley does not suffer from pneumoconiosis to any extent, pneumoconiosis cannot be a contributing cause to his heart disease. … . § 727.203 Interim Presumption (a) Establishing interim presumption.

Jane Doe v. City of Mansfield

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 2023

At summary judgment, the district court denied Remy qualified immunity. Because the right in question was not clearly established, we reverse. No. 22-3052, Doe v. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does ‘not violate clearly established statutory

Lockett v. Suardini

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2008

Qualified immunity MDOC further argues in defense of Lockett’s claims that Blackford, Galloway, Irvine, and Suardini are entitled to qualified immunity. … Based on our determination that none of Lockett’s constitutional rights were violated, we have no need to discuss the availability of qualified immunity for the defendants in this case. See Scott v. Harris, 127 S.

Amira Salem v. Millicent Warren

609 F. App'x 281 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 2015

Even opening a handful of privileged letters, we have said, violates an inmate’s clearly established constitutional right under the First Amendment. Merriweather v. … Millicent Warren, et al. as an interlocutory appeal after the denial of qualified immunity to those defendants. Id. at 312.

Frank P. Schneider, and Cross-Appellants v. The Electric Auto-Lite Company, a Corporation, and Cross-Appellee

456 F.2d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 8, 1972

The District Court found: “The evidence . . . clearly establishes that in setting up the new shop in Hamilton Street, and in failing to permit employees in the old shop to bid for the jobs there, the defendant was deliberately … Although the evidence does not clearly establish this, in view of the complicated, confusing, and often conflicting testimony, we are of the opinion that the District Court’s finding is not “clearly erroneous.”

United States v. Ali Darwich

574 F. App'x 582 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 24, 2014

Darwich attempted to establish that he signed a document granting him transactional immunity. … See id. at 574 (applying the clearly erroneous standard to review of district court’s decision as to whether the defendant breached his immunity agreement).

Mitchell v. Boelcke

440 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2006

Mitchell and Culpepper also maintain that the evidence adduced at trial in this matter clearly established selective enforcement of the laws by the police against African-American suspects. … They have not attempted to justify the verdict on the alternative ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

Carl Ward v. Nat'l Patient Account Servs.

9 F.4th 357 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2021

Because Ward did not clearly assert in his complaint that he received—let alone was harmed by—an additional phone call, we need not decide whether an unwanted call might qualify as a concrete injury. Cf. Gadelhak v. … The majority rejects Ward’s argument that NPAS’s unwanted voicemail establishes his standing to sue because Ward failed to “‘clearly allege’ that harm in his complaint.” Maj. Op. at 8 (quoting Spokeo, 136 S.

John Hamilton and Jo-Bet, Inc., a Michigan Corporation D/B/A Henry the Viii South v. Lawrence Lokuta, Individually

9 F.3d 1548 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 1993

Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, defendant Lokuta asserting a defense of qualified immunity, among other things. … their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Robinson v. Township of Redford

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2005

any such right was not clearly established at the time of the murder. … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id.

Stotts v. Memphis Fire Department

679 F.2d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 7, 1982

The 1980 Decree also established specific hiring and promotion goals. The hiring goal stated that qualified minorities should fill at least 50% of all vacancies. … First, he noted that had plaintiff’s allegation been established, the court would clearly have had the power to modify the existing seniority system to require affirmative action in promotions and transfers.