Case law

Kim Hodges v. Joseph Abram

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 29, 2025

For these public officials to be granted qualified immunity from liability, they must not have violated the decedent’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Finally, the district court found that Molson’s need for medical attention was clearly established at the time of his arrest, thus precluding summary judgment for Defendants on qualified immunity grounds. 1

Doe v. Warren Consolidated Schools

93 F. App'x 812 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 24, 2004

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to be free from sexual abuse was therefore clearly established at the time of the alleged abuse.

Arthur Lance Bier v. Paul D. Fleming and Charles I. Alatis

717 F.2d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 1983

Paul Fleming asserts that he acted in good faith and therefore should be accorded the defense of qualified immunity. … We conclude that the district court erred in not granting Fleming the defense of qualified, good faith immunity.

William Gardner v. Jason Evans

920 F.3d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2019

this constitutional notice requirement was clearly established. … Nevertheless, the inspectors would be immune from suit if the plaintiffs did not have a clearly established right to be free from eviction based  No. 17-1933 Gardner, et al. v.

Wells v. Brown

891 F.2d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

immunity” from damages by violating “clearly established” rights protected by the Due Process Clause. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court predicted that qualified immunity would “permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment.”

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).

J. Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ.

938 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2019

In any qualified immunity analysis, we must answer two questions: (1) was there a constitutional violation; and (2) if so, was the right clearly established when the violation occurred? Everson v. … Because Emerick has claimed qualified immunity, Endres must also show that the constitutional rights Emerick violated were clearly established when the violation occurred. See DiLuzio v.

Gibson v. Matthews

926 F.2d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 22, 1991

II 21 We uphold the district court's judgment in part because we believe that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under the doctrine established in Harlow v. … III 27 We would uphold the district court even if qualified immunity was not available.

Barnes v. Wright

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2006

Qualified Immunity “[T]he Supreme Court [has] held that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Center For Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City Of Springboro

477 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2007

Plaintiffs' Rights Were Clearly Established 52 Qualified immunity does not protect those who knowingly violate the law. Malley v. … To decide whether qualified immunity is proper, we again consider whether Defendants violated a "clearly established" constitutional right. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Catrena Green v. Adam Throckmorton

681 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 13, 2012

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Rather, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 “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 possessed

Daniel Newman v. Hamburg Township

773 F.3d 769 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 2014

Calhoun moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Sergeant Calhoun is entitled to qualified immunity if he did not violate Newman’s clearly established constitutional rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

Buckner v. Kilgore, II

36 F.3d 536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 1994

In analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the defendant's alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … judgment on qualified immunity grounds is improper); Poe v.

Derfiny v. Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital

106 F. App'x 929 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 6, 2004

Qualified immunity shields from liability for civil damages those officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Second, this right must be so clearly established that a reasonable officer would understand that his or her actions would violate that right. Id.; see also Anderson v.

Jennifer Garza v. Lansing Sch. District

972 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 2020

Page 29 on grounds of qualified immunity. … “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 rights of which a reasonable person

Curry Ex Rel. Curry v. Hensiner

513 F.3d 570 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 16, 2008

clearly established. … The third inquiry impacts the analysis when despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and so should still enjoy qualified immunity.

Russell Durham v. Mahdee Nu'man Roy Hill James Burke Ricky Rhodes, Donnie Glover George Nichols Becky Ahlers Nasiruddin Siddiqui Farahieh Rabbani

97 F.3d 862 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 22, 1996

established” duty to do so. … immunity is intended to shield from suit those officials whose wrongful conduct 2 was not clearly established as a constitutional violation at the time the conduct occurred.

Taylor v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources

502 F.3d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 2007

An officer is protected by qualified immunity provided his conduct did not run afoul of a right that is clearly established. … By definition, if Officer Rose did not violate a constitutional right, he did not violate a constitutional right that is clearly established.

Bobby Watts, M.D. v. John H. Burkhart, M.D., Howard R. Foreman, M.D., Alvin J. Ingram, M.D., I. Lee Arnold, M.D., and Duane C. Budd, M.D.

978 F.2d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 28, 1992

Such a risk was more clearly evident in Simons v. … Defendants who are entitled to absolute immunity are often entitled to qualified immunity as well, but absolute immunity has the advantage, from the defendant’s standpoint, of better enabling the defendant to avoid the burdens

Potts v. Hill

77 F. App'x 330 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 2003

“Qualified immunity” is an “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to a liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v. … by the theory of “qualified immunity” for his conduct in 1996.