Case law

George Clark v. Anthony Abdallah

131 F.4th 432 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

Responding to a § 1983 claim, an officer may assert the defense of qualified immunity, which shields officers from damages suits unless their conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Law Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they violated clearly established law.

Hensley v. Wilson

850 F.2d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 20, 1988

Mitchell stated the rule that: *273 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 of discovery … We conclude, therefore, that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under Mitchell , because any violations they committed were not of “clearly established law.”

Joshua Clay v. Michael Emmi

797 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2015

was appropriate under the circumstances and not prohibited by clearly established law. … “If . . . aside from the impermissible arguments regarding disputes of fact, the defendant also raises the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of violation of clearly established law,

Stephen Jarriett v. Julius Wilson

414 F.3d 634 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for actions taken within their official discretion insofar as these actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Cartwright v. Marine City

336 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

The plaintiff has the burden of establishing that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Rich v. … Because there was no violation, we do not reach the clearly-established prong. D.

Spears Ex Rel. Estate of McCargo v. Ruth

589 F.3d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 10, 2009

The defendants timely filed motions for summary judgment asserting various defenses including qualified immunity. … Government officials are immune from civil liability unless, in the course of performing their discretionary functions, they violate the plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights. See Hills v.

John Does 1-5 v. Gretchen Whitmer

69 F.4th 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 2023

; and (4) the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity as to the plaintiffs’ timely Ex Post Facto Clause claims, but were entitled to qualified immunity as to any First and Fourteenth Amendment violations that were … not clearly established.3 We review grants of motions to dismiss de novo.

Coker v. Summit County Sheriff's Department

90 F. App'x 782 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 15, 2003

Therefore, Detective Jones did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and is entitled to qualified immunity. b. … Because Coker is unable to establish a violation of a clearly establish right, Sheriff Warren is also entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. 2.

Waters v. City of Morristown

242 F.3d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 22, 2001

Shuck’s actions fell outside the scope of § 1983 because they were not taken under color of state law, that Officer Graham was entitled to qualified immunity because he had acted reasonably and did not violate clearly established … Thus, the first step in any qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether a clearly established statutory or constitutional right has been violated.

Katie Kindl v. City of Berkley

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.

Alexander v. Carrick

31 F. App'x 176 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 2002

In the alternative, defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that they did not violate any constitutional right held by Alexander, or that any right violated was not clearly established … The qualified immunity analysis is essentially a two-pronged inquiry.

Hutsell v. Sayre

5 F.3d 996 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 1993

Defendants may, however, assert the defense of qualified immunity to the extent that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … clearly established at the time in question that a reasonable official in the defendant’s position would have known that he was violating the plaintiffs constitutional rights.

Wilford Allen Knight v. Gary Gill Stephen T. Smith and John Wigginton

999 F.2d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 1993

On July 6, 1992, the defendants moved for summary judgment arguing, inter alia, that “[pjrison officials are immune from suit on the basis of qualified good faith immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established … The district court rejected the defendants’ qualified immunity claim.

Doe ex rel. Doe v. City of Roseville

296 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 16, 2002

Qualified Immunity This is an interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity to each of the defendant school officials. … that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Wrubel v. Bouchard

65 F. App'x 933 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2003

Whether an officer is protected by qualified immunity depends on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” … This Circuit has established a “tripartite procedure” for evaluating the applicability of the qualified immunity defense: First, we determine whether a constitutional -violation has occurred; second, we determine whether

Tony'' v. Childers, II

71 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 20, 1995

Similarly, the court held that no legal authority clearly established that CAPTA creates enforceable rights. Id. at 227 . Plaintiffs appeal the district court's grant of qualified immunity on both claims. … Thus, we need not reach the question of whether such rights were clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. We AFFIRM. * The Honorable Monroe G.

Haynes v. City of Circleville

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 25, 2007

Qualified immunity When government officials are performing discretionary functions, their actions are generally shielded from civil liability as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Haynes is a fortiori unable to satisfy the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis—that the constitutional right was clearly established. C.

Williams v. Michigan Board of Dentistry

39 F. App'x 147 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 7, 2002

Hence, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Hence, he cannot establish an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Bernard Hardrick v. Erica Huss

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 2025

For the remaining claims, it concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because Hardrick failed to plead a constitutional violation or, in the alternative, a violation of clearly established law. … Clearly Established Law Nevertheless, Warden Huss is entitled to qualified immunity unless her actions violated clearly established law at the time of the alleged conduct.

Boler v. Earley

865 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 2017

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position … The test for qualified immunity is two-pronged, and the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established.