Case law

Daniel Zavatson v. City of Warren, Mich.

714 F. App'x 512 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity (Federal Law) Notwithstanding the above analysis, qualified immunity protects officers from civil liability so long as they do not violate clearly established constitutional rights by engaging … In order to avail himself of governmental immunity, “the proponent of individual immunity must establish that he acted without malice.”

Seth Taylor v. Davidson Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2020

They invoked qualified immunity, arguing that Taylor had failed to show whether or how each individual officer had violated his clearly established rights. … Each officer is immune from suit unless his specific conduct violated clearly established law. Id.

Logan Davis v. Jeremy Walleman

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 24, 2023

We review de novo a district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Chapman, 814 F.3d at 444. … clearly established,” and “a legal aspect of the district court’s factual determinations, such as whether the district court properly assessed the incontrovertible record evidence.” DiLuzio, 796 F.3d at 609.

Bruce Oran Cunningham v. Troy Packard

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 24, 2023

To defeat qualified immunity, Cunningham must show that (1) Sergeant Packard violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). … was clearly established.

Bobby Watts, M.D. v. John H. Burkhart, M.D.

854 F.2d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 12, 1988

The court then dismissed the Division from the law suit on the ground that it was immune from Watts’ damages claims as a state agency. Watts had expressly agreed to the dismissal of the Division. … The rule of Parratt and Vicory is clearly inapplicable “where a deprivation of property is caused by conduct pursuant to established state procedure, rather than random and unauthorized conduct.”

Tonya Bowles v. Eric Sabree

121 F.4th 539 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2024

But we held that the county’s treasurer, Eric Sabree, did (in his official capacity) share the state’s qualified immunity, because once the county chose to serve as a foreclosing unit under the GPTA, state law required Sabree … But once a plaintiff has established standing, the merits inquiry does not dip back into standing.

Montez v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 2004

Pursuant to the States is immune from Tort Liability.” … Moreover, the phrases “at such times” and “to discretionary function exception was meant to the degree necessary” clearly allow prison officials discretion shield?

William Franklin v. City of Southfield, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 14, 2020

But because both the objective reasonableness of Roeske’s actions and the assertion that he did not violate clearly established law hinge on disputes of material fact not conceded or otherwise resolved by the record, we … Qualified immunity insulates “government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

James Samuel Sims v. Ted Engle, Superintendent

619 F.2d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 1980

Because a question of law is presented, our scope of review is free from the clearly erroneous standard. … It is firmly established that jeopardy attaches “when the Juvenile Court, as the trier of the facts, began to hear evidence.” Breed 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 … Clearly, Hartsel has failed to proffer sufficient information to put these extremely subjective and vague allegations in logical context, and has therefore failed to exceed the scintilla threshold to prevent summary judgment

Wal-Juice Bar, Inc. v. Elliott

899 F.2d 1502 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 1990

In February 1984, both Christian County and the city of Oak Grove passed ordinances prohibiting nude or semi-nude activities at establishments holding liquor licenses. … Federal claim (4) is really not a claim at all, since section 1983 provides judicial relief but does not itself establish substantial constitutional rights.

Banning v. United States

130 F.2d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 7, 1942

He was also asked who testified in that case in his behalf and whether all of his witnesses attempted to establish an alibi for him and in answering he admitted this was true. … This rule is clearly applicable where the defendants on trial deny participation in the offense.

United States v. Morris

641 F. App'x 457 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2016

Hockenberry, 730 F.3d 645, 666 (6th Cir.2013) (“[A] district court may rely on unchallenged PSR findings to establish the existence of prior convictions.”). … Morris’s prior drug conviction clearly qualifies as a prior controlled-substance offense, and he does not challenge any other requirement for being classified a career offender.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Almon D. Wells, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee

473 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2007

Both the United States and Wells agree that the defendant has previously been convicted of at least two offenses that would qualify as “violent felonies.” … The government notes, however, that qualifying delinquent acts must additionally “involv[e] the use or carrying of a firearm, knife, or destructive device.”

Lee Brenneman v. Medcentral Health System

366 F.3d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 26, 2004

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: “(1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the position with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) he suffered … Clearly, plaintiff could not perform these duties when absent from defendant’s premises. Arkwright further testified that plaintiffs excessive absences placed a great strain on the Pharmacy Department.

D.A.B.E., Inc., D/B/A Arnie's Saloon v. City of Toledo

393 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2005

abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of appellants’ request for injunctive relief; within this standard, the district court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and its factual findings are upheld unless clearly … not that these establishments were immune to smoking-related regulation, but that they simply did not fall within the ambit of the statute.

United States v. Nichols

512 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 15, 2008

Ohio State Highway Patrol, 308 F.3d 523 (6th Cir.2002) (rejecting officer’s qualified immunity defense and affirming partial summary judgment in favor of Hispanic motorists who brought equal protection challenge under § 1983 … One such case where waiver may be clearly inferred is when a defendant, after being properly informed of his rights and indicating that he understands them, nevertheless does nothing to invoke those rights.

S. Jones v. City of Detroit, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 14, 2020

Qualified immunity precludes liability for police officers except when they commit (1) a violation of the law (2) that is clearly established. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). … Because the officers did not violate any clearly established law, qualified immunity applies. We reverse. 9 Case No. 19-2346, Jones v.

Richard E. Hoover v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

102 F.3d 842 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 1996

Congress clearly did not intend courts to engage in the very sort of subjective inquiry that had prompted the 1984 revision. … Hoover’s death, and Ohio law applicable at the time of the decree did not clearly provide for such termination.

United States v. Goodman

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 17, 2008

The government bears the burden of establishing that a conviction qualifies for an ACCA sentence enhancement.” United States v. Lancaster, 501 F.3d 673, 675 (6th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. … This statement, if true, establishes only that Goodman or the victim took the gun when they left.