Case law

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

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.

El Bey v. Roop

530 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages stemming from their performance of discretionary functions so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

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

Darryl Gray, Personal Representative of Estate of Mark Gray, Deceased v. City of Detroit and Police Officer Douglas Gross

399 F.3d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2005

Officer Gross is Entitled to Qualified Immunity This Court has adopted a three step analysis in determining when qualified immunity applies. Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893, 900-901 (6th Cir.2004). … Officer Gross is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. B.

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.

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

McKenna v. City of Royal Oak

469 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 28, 2006

While the officers assert that they “raise only the legal issue of whether the facts set forth by [McKenna] constitute a violation of clearly established law,” all three arguments advanced by the officers on the issue of … qualified immunity appeal.

Scott v. Churchill

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 2004

An official defendant in a § 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct “does not violate clearly established Scott v. … Cale, decided in 1988, clearly entitled to qualified immunity. establishes that the mere potential threat of disciplinary sanctions is sufficiently adverse action to support a claim of E.

Tracy Jefferson v. Terry Lewis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2010

Qualified Immunity 1. … of qualified immunity.

Carolyn Comstock v. Norris McCrary v. S. Thyagarajan and David Howell

273 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 2001

of this appeal, “ ‘show[ ] a violation of clearly established law,’ not on ‘which facts the parties may be able to prove,’ the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is a ‘final order’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and … Qualified Immunity In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts which do not violate clearly established law of which a

Garretson v. City of Madison Heights

407 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 27, 2005

entitled to qualified immunity. … legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Wanda Sowards v. Loudon County, Tennessee and Timothy Guider, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Loudon County, Tennessee

203 F.3d 426 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 24, 2000

Because the law was so clearly established that he could not reasonably take political considerations into account when terminating Sowards, Guider is not entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity for Sowards … Therefore, in deciding whether the law was clearly established for the purpose' of qualified immunity, we look for decisions that involve positions with the same or similar statutory duties. 5 .

Levin v. Childers

101 F.3d 44 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials against suit for the performance of discretionary functions so long as the conduct in question “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … immunity because the facts pleaded would not show that his conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have known at the time.”

Kimberly Ann Carlson v. Raymond Henry Conklin, Perry Johnson

813 F.2d 769 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 1987

. § 1983 (1981), arguing only that the trial court erred in denying his claim of qualified immunity. … In light of the Harlow decision, this means that: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Minchella v. Bauman

72 F. App'x 405 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2003

“[I]f 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.” Id.; Anderson v. … “The 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 in the situation he confronted.”

Vector Research, Inc. v. Howard & Howard Attorneys P.C.

76 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 1996

clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The district court expressly assumed that the defendants were federal agents, but held that they could rely on qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established rights of the plaintiffs.

Otworth v. Village of Lakewood Club

59 F. App'x 785 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 11, 2003

Otworth filed objections, arguing that the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they should have known that their denial of his site plan would violate his clearly established rights. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v.

Baskin v. Smith

50 F. App'x 731 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 2002

Jurisdiction We review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. Blake v. Wright, 179 F.3d 1003, 1007 (6th Cir.1999). … In this circuit, it is well established that, for appellate jurisdiction to he over an interlocutory appeal, a defendant seeking qualified immunity must be willing to concede to the facts as alleged by the plaintiff and discuss

Kevin Everson v. Simon Leis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … 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