Case law

William Drake v. Charles Howland

463 F. App'x 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2012

Courts deem these latter acts to be “investigative” or “administrative,” rather than prosecutorial, and therefore protected only by qualified immunity. See Van de Kamp v. … In an attempt to establish that the complaint itself caused Brandon harm, the Drakes argue that the complaint functioned as an instruction to arrest Brandon, an administrative/investigative act protected only by qualified

James R. Singleton v. United States

277 F.3d 864 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 22, 2002

. § 2680 (h), which lists libel and/or slander as an exception to the United States’ general waiver of sovereign immunity in 28 U.S.C. § 2674 . … However, the FTCA excepts certain torts from this waiver of sovereign immunity, including libel and slander. 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h).

United States v. Davis

52 F. App'x 738 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

The district court concluded that Davis qualified as an armed career criminal and sentenced him to 180 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. … The district court properly accepted Davis’s guilty plea because the transcripts of the plea hearing and sentencing proceeding clearly establish that, under the totality of the circumstances, Davis’s plea was entered voluntarily

Creusere v. Weaver

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2009

In resolving questions of qualified immunity, we proceed in two steps. … If this question is answered in the affirmative, we next ask “whether the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case.” Scott, 127 S.

Frank McKenna v. Bowling Green State Univ.

568 F. App'x 450 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 13, 2014

Morgan-Russell asserts a qualified-immunity defense to these claims. The doctrine of qualified immunity is a defense to § 1983 claims. Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640, 647 (6th Cir. 2010). … There are two general steps to a qualified immunity analysis.

Eddie Hopson v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation

306 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2002

Title VII The analytical framework governing Title VII cases in the absence of direct evidence of discrimination is well-established. … Express Corp., 266 F.3d 401, 406 (6th Cir.2001) (stating that to establish a prima facie case, a Title VII plaintiff must show: (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he was qualified for the job; (3) that

Michelle Hammond-Beville v. Jeff Landis

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

no Tennessee case had clearly established that proposition at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Moreover, under no principle of qualified-immunity jurisprudence of which we are aware may a litigant use an unreasoned trial-court order to essentially “de-establish” a legal proposition otherwise clearly established by

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Bowen

909 F.2d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 1990

II Subsection (C) clearly establishes a restriction on the method by which health providers may bill for clinical diagnostic testing. … Were the statute to exclude the qualifying phrase and state simply that “payment for a clinical diagnostic laboratory test (not performed by a rural health clinic) must be made on an assignment-related basis,” it would clearly

George-Khouri Family v. OH Dept Liquor

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 2005

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for actions taken within their official discretion insofar as these actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.”

James Adkins v. Morgan Cty., Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2020

In assessing qualified immunity, we are asking only whether Schubert violated a clearly established constitutional right by being deliberately indifferent to Adkins’s serious medical condition. … Clearly Established Right Finally, we ask whether the constitutional violation at issue in this case was of a clearly established right.

Guldager v. United States

204 F.2d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 25, 1953

Under established rules, they became part of the contract. … No other- form of registration establishing co-ownership is authorized.”

United States v. William J. Alt, M.D. Rosalinda Alt Karen Alt Robert W. Alt, William J. Alt, M.D.

83 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 1996

The Court held that a civil penalty “more than 220 times greater than the Government’s measurable los[s] qualified as punishment.” Halper, 490 U.S. at 436 , 109 S.Ct. at 1895 . … Together, these three cases clearly suggest that some civil tax additions can be punishment.

Malgorzata Krawczyk v. Township of Hagar

673 F. App'x 508 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2016

But the burden to prove immunity is theirs, including the burden of establishing the requisite facts and law that proves their point. … Township of Hagar cause of the injury, the defendant generally cannot invoke Michigan qualified immunity before at least some fact-finding.

Donald Harris v. Clarice Stovall

212 F.3d 940 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2000

The Williams Court stated that “[w]hatever would qualify as an ‘old rule’ under Teague mil constitute ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by [this] Court.’ ” Williams, — U.S. at -, 120 S.Ct. at 1499 (citation … Court precedent on the rule sought by petitioner was not clearly established.

Ratliff v. Wellington Exempted Village Schools Board of Education

820 F.2d 792 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 1987

City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), that a municipality is not immune from damages simply because its officials acted in good faith. … General Motors establishes simply that the new rale announced and applied in DelCostello v.

Hartsel v. Keys

87 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and creates a presumption of discrimination by showing: (1) membership in the protected class; (2) that she … Furthermore, a civil servant is not allowed to immunize herself from being fired or denied a promotion by supporting an unpopular cause or losing candidate.

David Tarter v. William Raybuck

742 F.2d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 31, 1984

established constitutional rights that his action cannot be reasonably characterized as being in good faith. … The district court in the case at bar did not address the immunity issue, nor do we. See infra, note 7. 7 .

Newark Gardens, Inc. v. Michigan Potato Industry Commission

847 F.2d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 16, 1988

Essentially, plaintiff argues that the Commission qualifies as a “handler” under 7 U.S.C. § 2302 (a)(3) and therefore is subject to the prohibitions of the AFPA. … The associations were thus clearly performing “marketing” functions within the plain meaning of the term.

Hermann v. Cook

114 F. App'x 162 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 22, 2004

established right such that the officers would not be entitled to qualified immunity. … “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

Karen W. Klyce v. Carlos Ramirez, M.D., and John Gonzalez, M.D.

852 F.2d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 19, 1988

immunity when the constitutional or statutory right they were alleged to have violated was not clearly established at the time they acted or when the plaintiff, through discovery, fails to adduce evidence to support his … Although an order denying a defendant's motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is an immediately appealable interlocutory order, Mitchell v.