Case law

William Ashford v. Univ. of Mich.

89 F.4th 960 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2024

immunity because their actions clearly violated Ashford’s well-established constitutional right to free speech. … that Ashford had a clearly established right to exercise his free speech rights without retaliation,” and subsequently denied their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Wendy Browning v. Edmonson Cnty., Ky.

18 F.4th 516 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 2021

the right was clearly established.” … To meet the second qualified-immunity element, C.S. next must show that Jones’s use of a taser violated “clearly established” law. See Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 589.

Blake v. Wright

179 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 1999

Alternatively, the majority opinion may imply that the district court in Mitchell could not reach the qualified immunity question because the law with respect to Title III was clearly established, not because qualified immunity … We fail to see the logic of providing a defense of qualified immunity to protect public officials from personal liability when they violate constitutional rights that are not clearly established and deny them qualified immunity

Timmy Mosier v. Joseph Evans

90 F.4th 541 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2024

The defense of qualified immunity protects officials when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that an official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right under federal law. Reed v.

Dale Singleton v. Commw. of Ky.

843 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 6, 2016

violated clearly established federal law. … But in this instance our decision has less to do with traditional qualified immunity disputes—especially the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—and more to do with the Supremacy Clause.

Dawn Crawford v. John Tilley

15 F.4th 752 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 2021

To be fair, most statements of this proposition are careful to explain that its application rests on qualified immunity’s clearly established prong. See, e.g., Hart v. … This reluctance to dismiss cases on qualified immunity might have more vitality in the clearly established context, which Iqbal did not cover. But even there, the inquiry is nuanced.

Stuard Wegener v. City of Covington and Joseph Condit, City Solicitor, Lt. Joan Penick (90-5765) and Capt. Gilbert McClure (90-5716)

933 F.2d 390 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 16, 1991

Analysis A public official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct in performing discretionary functions so long as that conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … When ruling on qualified immunity, the district court should indicate the clearly established right at issue and the factual basis for its conclusion that a genuine issue exists as to the commission of acts violating that

T.S. Ex Rel. J.S. v. Doe

742 F.3d 632 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 5, 2014

The court went on to hold that Masters clearly established the right for both adults and juveniles to be free from strip searches absent individualized suspicion and, accordingly, denied qualified immunity to the defendants … We note, however, that the touchstone of qualified immunity in general, and the clearly-established-law inquiry in particular, is objective good faith. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815 (1982).

Philip Berryman v. Dean Rieger, C. Kukla, Diane Holzheuer

150 F.3d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 6, 1998

immunity — typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.” … of clearly established law.

Alfred R. Scicluna v. Harry G. Wells

345 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 2003

Doctrine of qualified immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields from liability for civil damages those officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … We evaluate a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity by determining whether (1) a constitutional violation occurred, (2) the right violated was clearly established, and (3) “the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts, and

Shari Guertin v. State of Mich.

912 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 4, 2019

unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right." … "Any other result would allow Hope 's fear of 'rigid, overreliance on factual similarity' in analyzing the 'clearly established' prong of the qualified immunity standard to be realized." *935 Baynes , 799 F.3d at 614 (quoting

Barrett v. Steubenville City Schools

388 F.3d 967 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 15, 2004

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or … In accordance with these fundamental principles of law, Lucci cannot obtain qualified immunity by claiming that no clearly established right existed. III.

David J. Scott v. Patrick Churchill, Inspector, Carson City Regional Facility, Philip Bair

377 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 2004

An official defendant in a § 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … established, and Bair is not entitled to qualified immunity.

William Dominque v. James A. Telb, Sheriff, Jimmy G. Putnam, Assistant Deputy Director

831 F.2d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 23, 1987

plaintiffs clearly established rights. … constitute a violation of clearly established law.

Rich v. City of Mayfield Heights

955 F.2d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 1992

Cureton, 882 F.2d 211, 215-16 (6th Cir.1989). 19 To determine if the defendant police officers' actions violated any clearly established constitutional rights such that they would not be entitled to rely on qualified immunity … We held that: 24 [T]he rights the district court cites as having been clearly established were not particularized rights as required by Anderson and, thus, were not sufficient to deny the defendants qualified immunity.

Pennington v. Metro Govt Nash

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2008

We also have no need to determine whether Bishop and Hagar are entitled to qualified immunity. See McKinley v. … of a clearly established right”) (emphasis in original).

Eugene A. Johnson v. Estate of Mark A. Laccheo, and James Overstreet, City of Eastlake

935 F.2d 109 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 5, 1991

Therefore, before granting defendants qualified immunity, we must decide: 1) whether Johnson has identified a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and, 2) whether a reasonable police officer in either … To summarize, defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense because they did not violate a clearly established law when arresting Johnson; and, even if such law were violated, a reasonable police officer in like

Buckner v. Kilgore

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

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity shielding them from civil liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … 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.

Marvin v. City of Taylor

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 2007

In other words, qualified immunity need only be granted if there is a violation of a constitutional right, but that right was not clearly established at the time the official violated it. … If, and only if, the force used was objectively unreasonable should the Court consider qualified immunity and address the second question: whether the right violated was clearly established. B.

Gerald Novak v. William Federspiel

140 F.4th 815 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 20, 2025

For the federal claims, the court held that qualified immunity protected Federspiel in his personal capacity and that, in any event, Novak and Wenzel had not established constitutional violations. … was clearly established at the time.”