Case law

Udine Ellis, Guardian for Lateasha Pendergrass v. Cleveland Municipal School District

455 F.3d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 24, 2006

Gibbs had a long-term substitute license from the Ohio Department of Education, qualifying her to teach grades seven through twelve. … Pendergrass attempts to establish the School District’s deliberate indifference also through the testimony of Dr.

Terri Conner v. Southfield Police Department

348 F. App'x 122 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 2009

Detective Michael Pieroni appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment on his claim for qualified immunity. … Because there was no constitutional violation, we need not address whether the constitutional right was clearly established, the other step of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 818.

United States v. Dallas Wayne Jones

124 F.3d 781 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 1997

Finally, corroborating circumstances must clearly establish the trustworthiness of the statement. Id.; United States v. … The videotaped explosion of the replica bomb served as evidence to establish that the bomb was a destructive device.

Foulks v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

713 F.2d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 1983

Amendment immunity. … In this case, the record clearly reflects that DeForge subjected the plaintiff to dissimilar treatment.

Clarence Seay, Jr. v. Tennessee Valley Authority Craven Crowell

339 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2003

However, the district court found that Plaintiff had failed to establish that he was qualified for the position. … Therefore, Plaintiff has not established that he was qualified for the job based on TVA’s posted qualifications.

Phillip D. Jacobs v. Charlie Young

51 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 1995

Brooks, 39 F.3d at 127-28 . 8 Third, the district court incorrectly relied on qualified immunity to dismiss Jacobs's claim. … The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on the objective reasonableness of his or her actions, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time they were

United States v. James Hennessee

932 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 30, 2019

Because the apartment parking lot and gas station are clearly "different residences or business locations," see id. , Hennessee's offenses satisfy Paige 's third prong. … We reiterate, of course, that the facts need only satisfy one prong of the Paige test to establish that offenses were committed on different occasions.

Eugene Terrance, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Everett L. Terrance v. Northville Regional Psychiatric Hospital

286 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 8, 2002

In the alternative, defendants asserted the defense of qualified immunity. The district court analyzed defendants’ actions under a heightened standard for deliberate indifference. … Consequently, on the Eighth Amendment claim, the court held that the named defendants did not act deliberately indifferent in supervising and treating the decedent, and were therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Demjanjuk v. Mukasey

514 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 2008

The Chief Immigration Judge, however, clearly meets the statutory, definition of “immigration judge.” Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. … If “qualified” means “capable of,” or “able to,” then there is little doubt that Creppy was qualified to preside over removal hearings.

Shaun Burgett v. Kenneth Wilber

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2019

Once a government official claims he is entitled to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that he is not entitled to qualified immunity by establishing “that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right … ” and “that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

David McKinney v. Nick Ludwick

649 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 2011

The district court denied his petition, holding that the state court had not unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in determining that McKinney’s Fifth Amendment rights had not been violated. McKinney v. … A state-court decision is “contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if

Crestline Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

668 F.2d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 5, 1982

As we understand it, the rationale for the “political subdivision” exemption has its ultimate basis in the Tenth Amendment considerations of state sovereignty and the Eleventh Amendment grant of judicial immunity to the states … No. 85 at 7 (1981) (Institute established and governed by a New York State Legislative Act of 1831); Toledo District Nurses Assoc., 216 N.L.R.B. 743 (1975) (City of Toledo in fact had continuing control and ultimate responsibility

Jennifer Mannino, a Minor, by and Through Her Next Friend and Parent and Natural Guardian, Richard Mannino v. International Manufacturing Company

650 F.2d 846 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 1981

, my primary considerations are directed to the fact that his opinion is predicated upon material that has not been properly qualified as the basis upon which an expert opinion may be predicated; that he has not established … Bahniuk’s opinion was predicated upon material that had not been properly qualified as the basis upon which an expert opinion could be predicated, and that he had not established through his testimony a defective design,

Roderico Filadelfo Perez-Perez v. Pamela Bondi

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 2025

As a result, it is possible for the administrative record to close before the IJ issues its decision concerning an application for cancellation of removal. 5The legislative history of the INA “clearly indicates that … the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals”);2 8 U.S.C § 1231(a)(1)(B) (establishing, in relevant part, that the “removal period begins on . . .

Catherine Wilkerson v. Kevin Warner

545 F. App'x 413 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 31, 2013

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).4 The second prong is to determine whether the right was clearly established. Id. … Qualified immunity does not apply to shield the officer if a claim meets both prongs.

Dever v. Mack

40 F. App'x 980 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 19, 2002

Comparatively, a rule established following a petitioner’s conviction “that breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government” is not considered to be clearly established for the purposes … Despite this change in the motivational requirement for a statement to qualify under OHIO R.

Samantha Newell v. Central Mich. Univ. Bd. of Trs.

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

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … That is not to say that qualified immunity requires a prior decision “on all fours” to “form the basis for the clearly established right.” Id.

Philip R. Joelson v. United States of America

86 F.3d 1413 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 1996

claim; (3) Joelson’s exclusive remedy for a common law tort is an action against the United States; (4) the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants; (5) the defendants are entitled to qualified … immunity; and (6) the U.S.

Mendoza v. Berghuis

544 F.3d 650 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2008

Finally, what qualifies as “clearly established law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” for purposes of § 2254(d)(1), is itself clear. … Per our precedent, therefore, we treat Deck’s holding, in too, as if it were clearly established as of the time of the relevant state-court decisions here.

United States v. Pembrook

609 F.3d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 11, 2010

The court observed that “if the defendant were not qualified as a Career Criminal, which he is, he would be looking at 188 to 235 months of incarceration.” … A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, applies the law improperly, or uses an erroneous legal standard. Ibid.