Case law

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 .

Vaughn v. United States Small Business Administration

65 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 1995

Because we conclude that Whitmore did not violate any of Vaughn’s clearly established rights, we REVERSE the district court’s refusal to grant Whitmore qualified immunity. I. … Under Harlow, an exercise of such discretion only loses the protection of qualified immunity when a clearly established right has been violated.

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

Karen B. Masters v. Bobby G. Crouch

872 F.2d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 14, 1989

The defendants’ qualified immunity defense was based on their contention that at the time of the events complained of there was no “clearly established law” holding any of the defendants’ acts unconstitutional. … Thus, the district court denied the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. III. A. In Harlow v.

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

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.

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.

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.

Ashly Romero v. City of Lansing, Mich.

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

Law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless a plaintiff plausibly alleges that they “(1) violated a constitutional right (2) that was clearly established at the time of the wrongdoing.” … to qualified immunity.

Shari Guertin v. Michigan

924 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 16, 2019

So long as that is an appropriate approach to qualified immunity claims, it would seem that allegations like these— intentional or reckless poisoning of citizens—plausibly clear the clearly established hurdle and warrant … Respectfully, the majority’s decision on the issue of qualified immunity is barely colorable.

William Harris, Jr. v. City of Circleville

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 2009

The Court, however, retains jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law. Id. … to qualified immunity.

Tina Spear v. Dewey Sowders

33 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 1994

at the time of the *580 search, precluding the qualified immunity defense. … created a clearly established liberty interest.

Summar v. Bennett

157 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

Accordingly, the district court found Bennett insulated by qualified immunity for his failure to protect Summar from the foreseeable danger which ended his life. 9 Because the doctrine of qualified immunity is a legal issue … binding authority as a condition precedent to the rejection of qualified immunity.

Bazzi v. City of Dearborn

658 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 2011

clearly established.” … Bazzi’s Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established when the seizure occurred.

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

Jacobs v. Village of Ottawa Hills

5 F. App'x 390 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 2001

We only have jurisdiction to determine whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show a violation of clearly established law sufficient to bar a finding of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established legal rights of which a reasonable

Rush v. City of Lansing

644 F. App'x 415 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 29, 2016

B The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test bolsters our conclusion. The’ Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” … And, in any event, a constitutional right to be free from such a use of force was not clearly established.

Elois Dunigan v. Scott Noble, Public Safety Officer, and Percy Jenkins, Public Safety Officer, Jointly and Severally

390 F.3d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 4, 2005

Defendant Officers again respond with the defense of qualified immunity. II. “Qualified immunity is a government official’s ‘entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ ” Saucier v. … [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.

Alexandre Ansari v. Moises Jimenez

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2026

The court may grant qualified immunity on either basis. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 241–42 (2009). On appeal, Jimenez focuses on the clearly established prong. … He points out that, in Sykes, this court held that the defendants’ Rule 50(a) motion had not preserved their qualified immunity claim “because the Defendants ‘never mentioned ‘qualified immunity,’” “clearly established law