Case law

Kimberly Diei v. Randy Boyd

116 F.4th 637 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 17, 2024

Clearly Established. … We affirmed a grant of qualified immunity because the boundaries for the regulation of off-campus speech related to school activities were not clearly established. Id. at 545.

Washington v. Starke

855 F.2d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 1988

or not qualified immunity exists. … clearly established law.'

Steven Craig Cooper v. Larry E. Parrish

203 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 9, 2000

“If the answer is yes, then the second step is to determine whether the right is so ‘clearly established’ that a ‘reasonable official’ would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … assert a qualified immunity defense.

Smoak v. Hall

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2006

A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes when the contours of the right are sufficiently clear, even if the specific action in question has never been held unlawful. See Sample, 409 F.3d at 698. … established at the time as to deny the defendants the benefits of qualified immunity.

Burchett v. Kiefer

310 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 19, 2002

The right to be free from “excessively forceful handcuffing” is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes, Kostrzewa v. … Pelzer, this right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Cynthia D. Foy, Administratrix of the Estate of Terry A. Foy, Deceased v. City of Berea James H. Hinners M. Schultz Robert Surgenor Bruce Merwin

58 F.3d 227 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 1995

Nishiyama did not concern qualified immunity. The district court dismissed the section 1983 action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. … Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

Walter Himmelreich v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

5 F.4th 653 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2021

Page 7 Fitzgerald ties our jurisdiction over her appeal to an appellate court’s well-established authority to review immediately appeals of district-court decisions denying qualified immunity. Mitchell v. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” 472 U.S. at 526.

Lloyd D. Alkire v. Judge Jane Irving

305 F.3d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2002

According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity, of course, offers no protection for Holmes County. It is well established that municipalities are not entitled to qualified immunity. Russo v. City of Cincinnati 953 F.2d 1036, 1046 (6th Cir.1992).

Barbara Haywood v. Lawrence Hough

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 30, 2020

He concludes that because it is not clearly established that a corrections officer is unable to rely on the directions of a police officer in the circumstances he faced, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, Hubbard may not raise qualified immunity as a defense regardless of whether he violated any clearly established right.

Manetta v. Macomb County Enforcement Team

141 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal laws unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Thus, Kaiser is entitled to qualified immunity from the section 1983 claims of Manetta and Swieezkowski unless, when he acted, the law established the contours of the right allegedly violated so clearly that a reasonable

Ricky Jackson v. City of Cleveland

920 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 2019

Qualified immunity does not apply if (1) "on the plaintiff's facts," a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) the alleged violation was of "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … At issue in this appeal is whether, in 1975, the constitutional rights allegedly violated by Stoiker were sufficiently clearly established to deprive him of the protection of qualified immunity.

St. John v. Hickey

411 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 20, 2005

John suggest the violation of a clearly established right such that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, we conclude that, as to his official capacity claim, St. … But as a precursor to the Harlow qualified immunity analysis, a court must first determine whether any constitutional violation occurred, let alone the violation of a clearly established right. E.g., Saucier v.

Carter v. Detroit

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 27, 2005

Finally, to complete the qualified immunity analysis, this right was clearly established at the time of Hollins’s violation. … The right that Hollins violated was therefore clearly established. Under the facts alleged by the Estate, Hollins is not entitled to qualified immunity. The district court’s denial of summary judgment was proper.

Sigley v. Parma Heights

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 10, 2006

Qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … was entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

David Charvat v. Eastern Ohio Regional Wastewater Authority

246 F.3d 607 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2001

Standard of review The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, as well as from suit, as long as their official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Their position, therefore, is that Charvat has failed to prove that the Board members, Pollock, or Thomas violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Coble v. City of White House, Tenn.

634 F.3d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 11, 2011

The district court also found that Officer Carney was entitled to qualified immunity. … (2) the right was clearly established.”

United States v. Kendall Hollins

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

Brown, 732 F.3d 569, 574 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[O]ur precedent clearly establishes that the affiant need only specify that the confidential informant has given accurate information in the past to qualify as reliable.” … So does the evidence here establish such a conclusion? We believe that it does.

Mark Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dep't

844 F.3d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2016

Conversely, Defendants argue that the district court correctly concluded that the officers are immune from this action under the qualified immunity doctrine and that, in any event, they did not violate a clearly established … Relevant Legal Principles “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Darrin VanPelt v. City of Detroit, Mich.

70 F.4th 338 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 2023

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Officer Layne didn’t violate VanPelt’s constitutional rights and was thus entitled to qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, VanPelt must show that Officer Layne (1) violated a constitutional right that was (2) clearly established. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).