Case law

Kathryn M. Waters v. City of Morristown, Tennessee Merlin E. Shuck, Individually and in His Official Capacity as a Morristown Alderman/morristown City Councilman Jerry Graham, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Lieutenant in the Morristown Police Department

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.

Tapp v. Banks

1 F. App'x 344 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2001

“The key inquiry in analyzing a claim for qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, in order to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must (1) allege that a violation of a clearly established law occurred and (2) present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue as to whether the defendant

Fitzpatrick v. City of Dearborn Heights

19 F. App'x 261 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 6, 2001

the official allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights. … plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law” of which a reasonable person would have known.

Baranski v. Fifteen Unknown Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

452 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2006

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff alleges facts that, if true, establish that the official violated the plaintiff's clearly established federal rights. Saucier v. … Groh in contrast contains a qualified immunity analysis and thus applied law clearly established at the time of the search. 3 See also FED. R. CRIM.

Mills v. City of Barbourville

389 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 2004

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … of probable cause is unreasonable, qualified immunity is not appropriate.

Howard Ex Rel. Estate of Howard v. Bayes

457 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2006

In support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants alleged, inter alia, qualified immunity from suit. … If the court determines that it was clearly established, the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

John Moody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board

790 F.3d 669 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 2015

Whether these rights were clearly established at the time remains a question. We remand the case for further proceedings. Cf. Dominque v. Telb, 831 F.2d 673, 677 (6th Cir. 1987). … It is “clearly established . . . that public employers may not coerce their employees to abdicate their constitutional rights on pain of dismissal . . . .” Clemente v.

McCarty v. City of Southfield

644 F. App'x 411 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2016

To overcome a qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. … Consequently, the district court was correct to deny qualified immunity .here.

John Sinclair Lawrence Plamondon and John Forrest Waterhouse, Plaintiffs v. Kenneth Schriber James Sullivan, and Charles Wagner

834 F.2d 103 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 1988

“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law,” as the Supreme Court has told us very plainly, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … “[A] defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery,” it will be recalled, “[ujnless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law_”

Sammye R. Holloway v. State of Ohio Ohio Department of Human Services Sally Brush Clermont County, Ohio

179 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 3, 1999

"[T]he actions of a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely because they are performed by a prosecutor. Qualified immunity represents the norm.... … Even if such motivations could legitimate Brush's actions, it would be through qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, and she has not claimed qualified immunity.

Ashley Bard v. Brown Cty., Ohio

970 F.3d 738 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2020

“We analyze claims of qualified immunity using a three-part test, which requires us to determine (1) whether a constitutional right was violated; (2) whether that right was clearly established and one of which a reasonable … The clearly-established prong of the qualified-immunity analysis is straightforwardly satisfied here. As the Supreme Court observed in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), “there is no doubt that Graham v.

White v. Trapp

93 F. App'x 23 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2004

In general, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In order to survive a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct implicates clearly established law. Cameron v. Seitz, 38 F.3d 264, 272 (6th Cir.1994).

Lanman v. Hinson

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2008

Qualified immunity shields public officials who perform discretionary functions from tort liability, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights viewed under the applicable constitutional standard … Therefore, we find that the right was clearly established at the time of Lanman’s restraint, and defendants James Siegfried, Mike Morey, George White, Robert Hinson, and Julie Stiver, R.N., are not entitled to qualified immunity

Amanda Meador, Serah Meador, and Tabetha Meador v. Cabinet for Human Resources, Marian McKinney and John Hoyle

902 F.2d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 1990

In its appellate brief, the Cabinet raises the defenses of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. With respect to the qualified immunity issue, it relies upon Eugene D. by and through Olivia D. v. … state officials qualified immunity from suit.

Reynolds v. Anchorage

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2004

It cannot be said that at that time it not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional was clearly established that Reynolds had a constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … As immune unless his actions violated clearly established law.”).

Stanley v. City of Norton

124 F. App'x 305 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2005

To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show: 1) that a constitutional right was violated; and 2) that the right was clearly established (whether a reasonable officer would have had fair warning that the acts the … While qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to be asserted by the defendant, the ultimate burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Gardenhire v.

Anderson v. Ohio State University

26 F. App'x 412 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 2001

The district court properly determined that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Yates v. City of Cleveland, 941 F.2d 444, 446 (6th Cir.1991). … In general, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Gary Hudson v. Lt. Harlan Edmonson

848 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 24, 1988

Edmonson then moved for reconsideration of the denial of his qualified immunity claim, arguing that since he was entitled to qualified immunity, it was immaterial whether he might be entitled to the even greater protection … Edmonson should have known that such conduct was violative of the prisoner’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Jamal Ward v. Charles Brotzke

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 12, 2026

To overcome qualified immunity, Ward must demonstrate “(1) the defendant[s] violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established” at the time of the incident. Thompson v. … So we conclude that Brotzke is also entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Dawn Hughey v. Anthony Easlick

3 F.4th 283 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2021

The Qualified-Immunity Test A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right and that right was “clearly established” such that “it would be clear … Clearly Established The “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity test requires us to ask “whether the state of the law [at the time of the action giving rise to the claim] gave respondents fair warning