Case law

Sheila McCullum v. Kenneth Tepe

693 F.3d 696 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 2012

Tepe sought summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court held that Tepe could not assert a qualified-immunity defense. We agree. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established

Carmita Lewis v. Charter Township of Flint

660 F. App'x 339 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2016

clearly established at the time of the violation.” … qualified-immunity issue.

Schreiber v. Moe

596 F.3d 323 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 4, 2010

Qualified Immunity Both Schreiber’s warrantless-entry and excessive-force claims must be analyzed under the framework of the qualified-immunity doctrine. … We also conclude that Schreiber’s right to be free from excessive force was clearly established, so that Moe is not entitled to qualified immunity. 6 The relevant question here is “whether it would be clear to a reasonable

Kelly Rhodes v. State of Mich.

10 F.4th 665 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2021

established’ prong of the qualified immunity standard.” … immunity because Rhodes’s asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Daryl Bennett v. Jeremy Krakowski

671 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 2011

However, it is well-established that an order denying qualified immunity to a public official is immediately appealable pursuant to the “collateral order” doctrine, Harrison, 539 F.3d at 521, “to the extent that a summary … judgment order denies qualified immunity based on a pure issue of law.”

Anas Elhady v. Unidentified CBP Agents

18 F.4th 880 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 19, 2021

And because the court also found that this right was clearly established, it held that qualified immunity did not protect Bradley. Bradley appeals the denial of qualified immunity. … There, the Fifth Circuit resolved the case based on qualified immunity’s clearly established prong. See Hernandez v. United States, 785 F.3d 117, 120–21 (5th Cir. 2015) (en banc).

Clifford Cummings, Jr. v. City of Akron Rodney Sherman and Howard Vaughn, Jr.

418 F.3d 676 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2005

In order to defeat Sherman’s and Vaughn’s assertion of qualified immunity, Cummings must demonstrate that (1) Sherman and Vaughn deprived him of a constitutionally protected right, and (2) that the right is “so clearly established … Thus, “[t]he threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

Cleveland Brown v. Michael J. Crowley

312 F.3d 782 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 2003

violation of clearly established law — has long since been lost. … "Both questions must be answered in the affirmative in order to defeat a government official's claim to qualified immunity," and "the burden is on the plaintiff to allege and prove that the defendant violated a clearly established

Mark A. Criss v. The City of Kent Rick Haury, Officer, Kent City Police Department

867 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 28, 1988

The Supreme Court has clearly stated that discovery in litigation against government officials should be halted until the threshold question of immunity is resolved. See Harlow v. … The probable cause issue to be resolved by the District Court on the summary judgment motion in this case disposed of the qualified immunity question.

Andrew Neuens v. City of Columbus, Officer Isaac Bridges

303 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 12, 2002

ANALYSIS Bridges’ interlocutory appeal is properly before us because his claim for qualified immunity was denied by the district court. … respect to the issue of qualified immunity.

Marquetta Williams v. City of Canton, Ohio

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 6, 2026

Clearly Established Law Yet qualified immunity shields officers from damages liability for constitutional violations unless they act in a “plainly incompetent” manner or “knowingly violate the law.” … To overcome a qualified-immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that an officer’s use of force conflicted with “clearly established” law. Id. (citation omitted).

Slusher v. Carson

540 F.3d 449 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2008

Qualified immunity is generally available for “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity, we first determine whether the deputies’ actions were unconstitutional and next determine whether any such violation was “clearly established in a ...

White-Bey v. Griggs

43 F. App'x 792 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2002

When reviewing a summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the court first determines whether the complaint alleges a deprivation of a constitutional right, then determines whether that right was clearly established … In this case, the district court determined that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time, which required

Deborah Harrison v. Tracey Kirk

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 2008

2) whether that right was clearly established. … Thus, qualified immunity allows suits which allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right to go forward while insulating officers against suits that are frivolous or where a reasonable officer attempting

Cathy Jarvis v. Billy Wellman John T. Wigginton Al C. Parke and Steve Smith

52 F.3d 125 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 1995

The contours of the defense of qualified immunity in § 1983 actions are fairly well defined. … Governmental officials who perform discretionary functions, such as the defendants in this case, generally are shielded from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Nunn v. Lynch

113 F. App'x 55 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2004

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

Humphrey v. Mabry

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 2, 2007

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Accordingly, we move to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. 2. Were the rights “clearly established”?

Sallier v. Brooks

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2003

Qualified immunity involves a three-step inquiry. … from a court is legal mail, the holding in Meckley, even In 1993 in Lavado, when faced with a qualified immunity though the opinion was unpublished, was directly to the issue, we held that it was clearly established

Ruby v. Horner

39 F. App'x 284 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2002

Even if a search warrant is defective, government officials are protected from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity as long as their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … It is clearly established that people are protected by the Fourth Amendment and that a search warrant must be based on probable cause.

Charles Kostrzewa v. City of Troy

247 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 2001

This circuit has held that the right to be free from excessive force, including “excessively forceful handcuffing,” is a clearly established right for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. … As this circuit has analyzed the qualified immunity issue in excessive force cases, the question of whether the reasonable officer would have known his conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights can be answered