Case law

Fitzpatrick v. City of Dearborn Heights

105 F. App'x 733 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 15, 2004

STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a district court’s denial of qualified immunity. Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151 , 1157 (6th Cir. 1996). DISCUSSION A qualified immunity analysis requires a two-step process. … Simakas are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Wolfel v. Morris

972 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 1992

Government officials who perform discretionary functions and whose conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known are entitled to qualified immunity … In a case decided before the qualified immunity doctrine was firmly established in Harlow , our Circuit held that immunity was available to “a prison official who relies on a facially valid regulation unless he knows or should

Justin Parsons v. City of Pontiac

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2008

But under § 1983, “an arresting agent is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information … Detectives Martin and McKinney, however, are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions “were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right.” See id.

Katie Kindl v. City of Berkley

798 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2015

Qualified immunity protects government officials sued under § 1983 from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To qualify as clearly established, “‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” Brown v.

Williams v. Pollard

44 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 25, 1995

In order to survive a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, plaintiffs must effectively pass two hurdles: First, the allegations must state a claim of the violation of clearly established law. … Pollard is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. III.

Natasha Thomas Susan Gibbs and Edwina Lewis v. Ann Cohen Glenn Craig James Embry and Susan Fischer, in Their Individual Capacities

304 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2002

a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity We must also decide whether, in light of clearly established law applicable on the date of the eviction, a reasonable officer would have believed that Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth

Leary v. Livingston County

528 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2008

As to Stone, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity; as to McGuekin, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity because the force used was de minimis. *441 I. … To overcome a qualified-immunity defense in the setting of a constitutional tort, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant violated a “constitutional right” and (2) that the right “was clearly established.”

Gregory v. City of Louisville

444 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 2006

of clearly established law.” … The Supreme Court noted that when the issue on qualified immunity turned on whether the facts, as alleged, constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional law, the issue on appeal was sufficiently separate from

Avery v. King

110 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 1997

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Therefore, Officer King was entitled to qualified immunity if “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [Avery’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed

Dewey O. Mays, Jr., M.D. v. City of Dayton

134 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 6, 1998

The district court denied summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue, finding that Gabringer was not entitled to qualified immunity because: (1) the affidavit filed by Gabringer in application for the search warrant … To overcome a defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: (1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and (2) establish that a reasonable officer

Neague ex rel. Neague v. Cynkar

258 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2001

This court has held that the right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331, 1342 (6th Cir.1993). … It would not be necessary to make a qualified immunity analysis.

Kathleen Benison v. George Ross

765 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2014

qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established at the time the lawsuit was filed. 3 Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not … Therefore, if a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing: (1) “a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the]

James T. Giovanetti, D.D.S. And Patricia Ann Giovanetti v. Nicholas J. Tomasi, D.D.S. Wally McLaughlin Robert L. Schroeder, D.D.S. And Omar Whisman

25 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 1994

The District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for the reason that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … II. 4 It is well established that "[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established

Littlejohn v. Rose

768 F.2d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 16, 1985

by impermissible motivation or in disregard of plaintiff’s clearly established rights.” … Rose, individually, is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

Avery v. King

110 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 1997

We disagree. 9 "Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, Officer King was entitled to qualified immunity if " 'a reasonable officer could have believed [Avery's arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed

Tucker v. Cty Richmond, KY

388 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 28, 2004

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Assuming that “a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

Zulock v. Shures

441 F. App'x 294 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 2010

Qualified immunity recognizes that the public interest is best served when officials can act “with independence and without fear of consequences” so long as their actions do not violate clearly established rights. … The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis asks whether *303 the constitutional violation in question “involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Beverly Nettles-Nickerson v. John Free

687 F.3d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2012

The district court, however, granted the officers’ motion for summary judgment, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Nettles- Nickerson did not have “a clearly established constitutional right to … Qualified immunity is warranted even if a constitutional violation has occurred if the right violated was not clearly established, Estate of Carter v.

Alan Baynes v. Brandon Cleland

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Clearly Established Although the district court agreed that Baynes established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it ultimately found that Baynes’ claim could not survive summary judgment because … This right was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002.”)

Heather Kerchen v. Univ. of Mich.

100 F.4th 751 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2024

Qualified immunity immunizes government officials from suit to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Although qualified immunity may generally be better resolved on a motion for summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must still sufficiently plead facts to show a clearly established constitutional violation