Case law

Cachet Beckham v. City of Euclid

689 F. App'x 409 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 10, 2017

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, “the court makes two inquiries.” Id. … Plaintiffs therefore fail at the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry; they have not established a violation of their constitutional rights, much less a “knowing[ ] or inten-tionalt ]” one.

Hedrick v. Western Rsrv

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2004

When a plaintiff seeks to establish a plaintiff must establish that: “1) he is an individual with a his case indirectly, however, the McDonnell Douglas burden- disability; 5 2) he is ‘otherwise qualified’ to … He must also establish that he is a “qualified accommodate a disabled individual. individual with a disability” by showing: (1) that he “satisfies the prerequisites for the position [he holds or Id.

Cardell Sanders, Jr. v. Genesee County, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 14, 2023

Qualified immunity acts as an affirmative defense against Section 1983 claims if the government officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Regardless of whether McCallum’s pulling out her gun qualifies as a constitutional violation, “we can begin and end our analysis with the requirement that [Sanders] identify clearly established law.”

R. S. v. Lucas Cnty. Children Servs.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 2025

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless “(1) . . . the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) . . . the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … We make one final point on qualified immunity. We may address the two qualified- immunity prongs in either order. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).

Allinder v. Ohio

808 F.2d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 1987

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention that defendants have waived immunity by proceeding in these actions, a waiver of eleventh amendment immunity will be found only where indicated “ ‘by the most express language or by such … Plaintiffs are clearly threatened with warrantless searches of their apiaries under the authority of O.R.C. § 909.05, and O.R.C. §§ 909.18 and 909.-99 subject them to a penalty should they resist.

Kevin Keith v. Betty Mitchell, Warden

455 F.3d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2006

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and “[i]t is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the … application of clearly established Federal law as articulated by the Supreme Court in Strickland .

Haley Hrdlicka v. General Motors, LLC

59 F.4th 791 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2023

To establish a failure to accommodate, an employee must show: “(1) that he is disabled, and (2) that he is ‘otherwise qualified for the position despite his or her disability: (a) without accommodation from the employer; … General Motors clearly established that its decision to deny Hrdlicka’s transfer was not based on either sex or race, but entirely premised on the fact that her prior sculpting position had been eliminated, that Hrdlicka

Robert I. Ward and Ruth Ward, Cross-Appellees v. United States of America, Cross-Appellant

838 F.2d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 1988

(b) No person in a health care profession requiring licensure under the laws of this state shall be competent to testify in any court of law to establish the facts required to be established by subsection (a) unless he was … Disqualification of Expert Witness On the second day of trial, the district court ruled that plaintiffs had not qualified Dr.

Telling v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co.

77 F.2d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 7, 1935

infringement has been settled, and an injunction has issued, directed not only to the infringing corporation but to all of its officers and agents, of which the accused officers have knowledge, that the corporate form furnishes immunity … It is, however, clearly established by the evidence that many infringing signs continued under lease and were serviced by the latter corporation.

Jennings v. Alexander

715 F.2d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 1983

The State clearly proved that it was justified in attempting to reduce its Medicaid expenses. … Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of discrimination against the handicapped.

Dakarai Larriett v. Mich. Dep't of State Police

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 2026

that right is “clearly established.” … The district court could only grant qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage “if it is clear that no violation of a clearly established constitutional right could be found under any set of facts that could be proven

Jason Banas v. Michael Hagbom

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 2020

And Hagbom claimed qualified immunity. The district court granted summary judgment to Hagbom based on qualified immunity for the initial takedown. … For a plaintiff to avoid summary judgment for the defendant based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendant (1) violated a constitutional right and (2) “the violated right was clearly established

Yakov Trakhtenberg v. County of Oakland

661 F. App'x 413 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 2016

These two prongs of the qualified immunity test may be addressed in any order. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). … Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that a clearly established right has been violated and that the official’s conduct caused that violation.

Vandiver v. Hardin County Board Of Education

925 F.2d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 1991

Where a child also shares that strong interest in religious education, Yoder 's special concern for parental interests should clearly extend to the child as well. … CONCLUSION 42 The parties on appeal also raise various arguments regarding qualified immunity for the defendant officials and sovereign immunity for the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Vanessa Enoch v. Hamilton Cty. Sheriff's Office

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 11, 2020

the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.” … Its principles, therefore, were not clearly established law at the time of the arrests.

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

Mary R. CHRISNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT, INC., Defendant-Appellant

645 F.2d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 1981

successfully rebutted that case by establishing ■a business necessity defense. … The initial burden on a Title VII *1257 plaintiff is to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination.

Smith v. Kent State University

696 F.2d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 1983

Furthermore, the Magistrate held that defendants, or some of them, enjoyed an Eleventh Amendment immunity from certain contractual claims made by appellant Smith. 2 Smith first became a member of the faculty at KSU in 1967 … This action ensued in 1974. 11 Under the facts related, Smith clearly received his full due process rights in the extended proceedings leading to his termination.

William Burgess v. Chuck Bowers

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2019

their actions violate clearly established rights.” … Having concluded that William failed to show that Ballard violated clearly established law, the court should have granted him qualified immunity. See Thompson, 831 F.3d at 369.

Amir Shabo v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III

892 F.3d 237 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 11, 2018

INS, 129 F.3d 438, 439 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the denial of a motion to reopen qualifies as a “final order of exclusion or deportation”). … App’x 556, 559 (6th Cir. 2007) (“The issue of whether substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s finding that [Petitioner] did not establish that he would likely be subject to torture . . . is clearly a factual