Case law

Lakin v. Stine

431 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2005

Nevertheless, an explicit statement by the Supreme Court is unnecessary; rather, “the legal principles and standards flowing from [Supreme Court] precedent” also qualify as “clearly established law.” … The Law Was Clearly Established Although Deck was only recently decided, the Supreme Court made clear that the guilt phase rule was clearly established law prior to the date of the Deck decision.

Phillip Reynolds-Bey v. Susanne Harris-Spicer

428 F. App'x 493 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 13, 2011

Here, Harris-Spicer was clearly acting in her “judicial” capacity–presiding over a hearing and authoring a hearing report. … “Once the plaintiff has met his burden of establishing that his protected conduct was a motivating factor behind any harm, the burden of production shifts to the defendant.

Harris v. Stovall

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2000

“Clearly established federal law as determined by the Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S. … Ct. meaning of “clearly established federal law as determined by 1257, 1260 (1990)).

Tricil Resources, Inc. v. William E. Brock, Iii, Secretary of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission

842 F.2d 141 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 5, 1988

Although the city once rejected a proposed pay increase for Tricil’s RES workers and, on another occasion, recommended the removal of two RES employees and the elimination of three other positions at the facility, the LTOSA clearly … Tricil established *144 the RES workers’ terms and conditions of employment. Tricil, not the city, dealt with the RES workers’ labor unions.

In Re United Trucking Service Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Debtor. United Trucking Service, Inc. v. Trailer Rental Company, Inc.

851 F.2d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 1988

. § 503 , establishes criteria for the allowance of administrative expenses: § 503. … We must decide whether the test established by Mammoth Mart and followed in White Motor Corp. is applicable to these facts.

Estate of Jonathan Manolios v. Macomb Cty.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2019

of the Manolioses’ clearly established constitutional rights—the requisite standard given the officers’ assertion of qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … But there is no such “clearly established” rule of constitutional law; thus, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. See Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012). Clear establishment is a high bar.

Hamilton's Bogarts, Inc. v. Michigan

501 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2007

Accordingly, we now hold that the Twenty-first Amendment does not qualify the constitutional prohibition against laws abridging the freedom of speech embodied in the First Amendment.”); see also Odle v. … It is also worth noting that the state itself is not a properly named defendant, as it is shielded from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Stanley L. Boswell v. Robert Mayer and Melinda Cieslinski

169 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 14, 1999

The MDOC policy for legal mail permitted a prisoner to submit a written request regarding mail “clearly designated as being from the prisoner’s designated attorney, the courts, or from the Legislative Correctional Ombudsman … Keohane, Judge Jones, the author of the opinion in Muhammad , held that federal prison authorities enjoyed qualified immunity for their actions taken in compliance with a mail policy. See Lavado, 992 F.2d at 608-09 .

Dewey Michael Williams v. London Utility Commission

375 F.3d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 8, 2004

This statute allows for the establishment of a utility commission as a separate corporate body with the power to contract and the power to manage all employment issues. … Mayor Smith clearly states that this did not motivate his decision to terminate Mr. Williams. In fact, Mayor Smith believed that the letter of reprimand that was placed in Mr.

United States v. William Aubrey Thompson, Thomas Edward Sisk and Charles Frederick Taylor

685 F.2d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 1982

[‘Enterprise’ in the context of our present case equally clearly refers to ‘The Office of Governor.’ … Certainly National League of Cities does not provide state officials with any general immunity from the reach of federal legislation. In National League a three-prong test was applied.

Bradley v. Milliken

540 F.2d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 1976

Clearly, it would be futile to attempt desegregation within the boundaries of these regions . 402 F.Supp. at 1129 . … The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” Id., [209 U.S.] at 159-160 [ 28 S.Ct. 441, at 454 ].

Gloria York v. George A. Biskup

92 F.3d 1186 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 1996

ORDER 1 The defendant appeals a district court order denying his motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity in this police brutality case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … right allegedly infringed was clearly established."

Minnich v. Cooper Farms, Inc.

39 F. App'x 289 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2002

Porter Paint Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 486 , 575 N.E.2d 428 (Ohio 1991), without clearly defining the elements of the cause of action. … In June 1998, plaintiffs applied for and were qualified as "floaters” who could perform any of several jobs with little or no notice. This came with a pay increase from $8.10 to $8.55 per hour. .

McCormick v. Braverman

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 20, 2006

In 1994, in Case No. 94-403973, Plaintiff filed a quiet title action against Edward’s estate to establish her ownership interest in the Henry Ruff Property. … Both forms of absolute immunity are subject to certain exceptions.

Mayflower Vehicle System, Inc. v. Chao

68 F. App'x 688 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2003

Mayflower next claims that even if a violation occurred, it does not qualify as a “serious violation.” … The regulations do not require that all of the provisions of the subsection be violated for any one of them to qualify as serious.

John R. Abbruzzese v. Mitchell Hammond Michael Hatzo Westerville Police Department City of Westerville

958 F.2d 371 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 1992

The district court granted the detectives' motion for summary judgment, finding that the detectives were protected under qualified immunity because the detectives did not violate any of Abbruzzese's "clearly established" … statutory or constitutional rights, the officers are shielded by qualified immunity from liability for civil damages.

Joseph Gale v. Corrigan O'Donohue

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

But we find qualified 30 19-1503, Gale v. O’Donohue immunity appropriate here based on a lack of clearly established law. … clearly established and no Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on any of the search or seizure claims.”

Hodge v. Haeberlin

579 F.3d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

The state-court determination— that Hodge suffered no prejudice and therefore could not establish ineffective assistance of counsel—is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. … The state-court's decision not to grant Hodge relief is entitled to deference, because it is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

McCarthy v. Maitland Place, D.D.S.

313 F. App'x 810 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 2008

Place moved for summary judgment, asserting that he was entitled to qualified immunity, and filed an accompanying brief and affidavit in support of summary judgment. In his affidavit, Dr. … The district court, however, did not reach the question of qualified immunity. McCarthy now timely appeals. II.

Jeris E. Bragan v. David Poindexter, Warden

249 F.3d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 2001

A concern is that a petitioner could obtain immunity from subsequent criminal prosecution by engaging in First Amendment activities. See Wayte v. … United States, 470 U.S. 598, 614 , 105 S.Ct. 1524, 1534 , 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985) (stating that the First Amendment confers no such immunity from prosecution).