Case law

Skinner v. Govorchin

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2006

Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974) (noting that “when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective” … As to Skinner’s individual-capacity claim, sovereign immunity does not bar the suit, but prosecutorial immunity does.

Wendy Cockrun v. Berrien Cnty., Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 26, 2024

We concluded that defendants failed to argue that the rights at issue were not clearly established and therefore forfeited the defense. Id. And in Watkins v. … of qualified immunity.”

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.

Alice Sussman v. Keith Dalton

552 F. App'x 488 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 16, 2014

Dalton cause, he is entitled to qualified immunity on Sussman’s federal claims. Accordingly, the district court should have dismissed the federal claims on qualified immunity grounds. … Dalton was accordingly entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims.

Marsh v. Eaton Corp.

639 F.2d 328 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 1981

In light of the absence of evidence concerning the Wire Mill, the District Court was not clearly erroneous in its finding that there was no sex discrimination proven at that plant. … There was no evidence that the inexperienced males were qualified for jobs other than machine tender/junior inspector or that the inexperienced females were not so qualified. 2 See, e. g., testimony, App. 35a-39a; District

Thomas E. Bowman v. Shawnee State University Jessica J. Jahnke

220 F.3d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2000

district court granted Jahnke’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Bowman’s Title VII claims against her on the basis that individual liability does not attach under Title VII unless the individual defendant otherwise qualifies … Bowman appeals the court's holding that the Ohio Court of Claims must decide whether Jahnke is entitled to immunity pursuant to O.R.C. § 9.86.

Peter Lyoya v. Christopher Schurr

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 2024

Schurr moved to dismiss, arguing that he is protected by qualified immunity. The district court denied his motion and Schurr appealed. … Schurr Schurr argues that we have jurisdiction over this appeal under the first exception because it “presents the purely legal question of what was clearly established when an officer loses control of his taser

James Yates v. Kim Davis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 2022

Qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity asks only two questions: did Davis violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and if so, were those rights clearly established?

Renita Griffith v. Kemba Fin. Credit Union, Inc.

567 F. App'x 339 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 29, 2014

And an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if he “could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed at the time[.]” … And a showing of “mere negligence” is insufficient to defeat Spezialetti’s entitlement to qualified immunity. Id. at 373.

Maynard v. Granite State Provident Ass'n

92 F. 435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 7, 1899

It is an established rule of equity that, when a corporation becomes insolvent, it is so far civilly dead that its property may be administered as a trust fund for the benefit of its stockholders and creditors (Graham v. … It appears quite as clearly from the record in this case that the nonresident shareholders of Tennessee are citizens of other states in the Union as it did in the Blake Case that the individual plaintiffs in error were citizens

Thomas Fox v. Saginaw Cnty., Mich.

67 F.4th 284 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 28, 2023

It rejected the Counties’ sovereign-immunity defense. Id. at *6–7. But it accepted the individual treasurers’ argument that qualified immunity protected them from liability, and it dismissed them from this suit. … So a plaintiff who lacks standing from the start cannot rely on factual changes during the suit to establish it. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 569 n.4.

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.

United States v. Willie Yates

866 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2017

The court in Mansur determined that the defendant’s conviction for attempted robbery under Ohio law qualified as a violent felony under the ACCA because “the crime of robbery clearly has as an element the use, attempted use … Johnson, 308 F.3d 594, 611 (6th Cir. 2002) (“It is well-established law in this circuit that unpublished cases are not binding precedent.”).

Penny/ohlmann/nieman, Inc. v. Miami Valley Pension Corp.

399 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 4, 2005

it was established. … A reviewing court would not have to determine if an ERISA-qualified plan had been violated, but rather simply if MVP failed to perform as it had represented.

unempl.ins.rep. (Cch) P 22,174 Sally Ann Valot, Jean Hansen, Anna D. Roosa v. Southeast Local School District Board of Education

107 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 1997

In opposition, Defendants contend not only that the district court’s decisions were proper on the merits, but also that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Because we affirm the district court's decision, we need not consider whether the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. David Ferguson

681 F.3d 826 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 5, 2012

or non-qualifying aspect of the statute was violated. … Where a legal error has been committed, it will be considered “plain” if it is contrary to clearly established law at the time of appeal. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997); United States v.

Mabel L. O'Daniel v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

458 F.2d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 1972

to the effective date of those amendments, under which she concededly became qualified prospectively. … We believe that the question of the retroactivity of section 223 was clearly resolved by the Congress in the 1967 amendments.

Johnston-Taylor v. Gannon

907 F.2d 1577 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 13, 1990

Haydon, 853 F.2d 418 (6th Cir.1988), held that President Gannon and the Board of Trustees were also entitled to summary judgment on the federal claims on the basis of qualified immunity. … The court determined that there was insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue as to the truth of the allegations that Gannon and the Board committed acts that violated clearly established law.

Williams Ex Rel. Allen v. Cambridge Board of Education

370 F.3d 630 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 4, 2004

The applicability of qualified immunity depends on: 1) whether the facts viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred; 2) whether the violation involved a clearly … committed acts that allegedly violated clearly established rights.”

Theodore L. Baetens and Joyce R. Baetens v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Donald L. Benbow Patricia J. Benbow Daniel W. Cass, Jr. Barbara Cass Earl R. Lueckel Lois E. Lueckel Frederic E. Saunders Mary Alice Saunders William H. Strong and Ella K. Strong v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

777 F.2d 1160 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 1985

We hold that section 402(a)(5) does not apply to such distributions from trusts not qualified at the time of distribution. 2 In the first of the cases, Stan's Trucking Company established a profit-sharing plan and related … Electric Cord established a pension plan which the IRS determined to be qualified as of 1959 and 1963 under section 401(a). The related trust was thus exempt under section 501(a) and qualified under section 402(a)(5).