Case law

McKinney v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government

651 F. App'x 449 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 2016

The resolution of the officers’ state-law qualified-official-immunity claims depends on the same issues of fact as their federal qualified-immunity claims. … The district court also held that since the officers may have violated McKinney’s clearly established constitutional rights, the doctrine of qualified official immunity did not shield the officers from liability against the

Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education of the Tipp City Exempted Village School District

428 F.3d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 2005

Analysis of Qualified Immunity The individual defendants also raise a qualified immunity defense as a basis for their Rule 12(b)(6) motion. … Evans-Marshall’s claim also satisfies the second prong of qualified immunity, that “the right was clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Dennis Wiertella v. Lake Cnty., Ohio

141 F.4th 775 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2025

Qualified immunity To overcome Snow’s and Watson’s qualified-immunity defense, the Estate must establish (1) that Snow and Watson violated Wiertella’s constitutional rights, and (2) that the governing caselaw “clearly … Sheehan, 575 U.S. 600, 613 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”).

Blair v. Meade

76 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 1996

Meade has qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis requires consideration of whether a right exists at all, i.e., whether plaintiff has asserted violation of a right, and whether that right was clearly established. • The motivation question

Terry Summers v. Simon Leis, Sheriff

368 F.3d 881 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 2004

qualified immunity.” … of qualified immunity.

Ortiz v. Kazimer

811 F.3d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2016

This use of force was clearly established as excessive before 2010. … His lack of action on this record establishes a cognizable claim that he violated Juan’s clearly established constitutional rights. State-law claims.

Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. City Of Pontiac

792 F.2d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 1986

This is not a simple conclusion that the law is clearly established as is necessary with qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), test for applying qualified immunity requires a finding that the official conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Sabrina Jordan v. John Howard

987 F.3d 537 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2021

a genuine dispute of material fact for trial and that the officers were protected by qualified immunity—because they did not violate McShann’s clearly established rights by using deadly force in response to threatened deadly … The district court found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate McShann’s clearly established constitutional rights and their use of deadly force was objectively reasonable.

King v. Ambs

519 F.3d 607 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … When considering a claim of qualified immunity, “[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful

Knisley v. PIKE CTY. JOINT VOCATIONAL SCHOOL DIST.

604 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2010

The defendants may still be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Our Circuit’s clearly established case law on this issue put the school and its employees on notice that this search was unconstitutional, so defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity protection.

James E. Duncan, Cross-Appellee v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck, Cross-Appellants, Highland Coal & Chemical Corporation

844 F.2d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 1988

Harlow made clear that this is an objective test, and that if the right was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to immunity, and the court should dismiss the case without further discovery. 6 Yet the underlying … Clearly, the important policy reasons for granting immunity from suit to government officials would not extend to private parties, who can be adequately protected from liability by merely establishing an affirmative good

Beard v. Whitmore Lake School District

402 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2005

denied the teachers’ request for qualified immunity. … Conclusion Because the searches in this case did not violate clearly established law, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The denial of summary judgment is accordingly REVERSED.

Atkins v. Township of Flint

94 F. App'x 342 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2004

Atkins clearly established constitutional right not to be arrested without probable cause and not to be subjected to excessive force. … Atkins could maintain a § 1983 action based on a violation of his clearly established right to be free from an arrest without a probable cause.

Darrell Siggers-El v. David Barlow

412 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2005

The Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that it was not clearly established that 1) a prisoner engages in protected conduct when he complains about a prison officer’s failure to … The only issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Defendant Barlow qualified immunity.

Charles Kaminski v. Brad Coulter

865 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

were not “clearly established” at the time that the violation occurred. … With respect to Clinton’s qualified-immunity defense, the district court held that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights “were clearly established” and that thus qualified immunity was unavailable.

Buchanan v. Metz

647 F. App'x 659 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 11, 2016

’s conduct (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right, which (2) is clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have known that the officer’s conduct violated that right. … Furthermore, any role that Metz may have had in advising Motley would be protected under qualified immunity, since we found that it is not clearly established that no reasonable officer would believe that a crime was being

Rodgers v. Hawley

14 F. App'x 403 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2001

Thus, assuming Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood violated Irvin’s right to be free from retaliation for filing grievances, the question for purposes of qualified immunity is whether this violation involved a “clearly established … Because they did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of their actions, Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood are entitled to qualified immunity on Irvin’s retaliation claim. 6 IV For the reasons

Patricia Scott v. Clay County, Tennessee Chinn Anderson Billy Pierce Michael Thompson

205 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2000

as their conduct does not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The procedure for evaluating claims of qualified immunity is tripartite: First, we determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established

Kathleene Schattilly v. Thomas Daugharty

656 F. App'x 123 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 2016

she still cannot show that defendants violated clearly established rights. … Because Schattilly has not met her burden of showing that the asserted rights are clearly established, we affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Williams, Acevedo, and Daugharty for interviewing Bailey

Victor Couzens v. City of Forest Park, Ohio

114 F.4th 571 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

established, so qualified immunity insulates the officers from liability. … So, even assuming that Couzens established constitutional violations here, those violations were not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. 8 Because Couzens sued Arns in his official