-
55 F.3d 1123 Sixth Circuit May 31, 1995 No. 94-5284
The primary question in such qualified immunity cases is whether the plaintiff has pointed to facts stating that the defendants violated her “clearly established rights.” Anderson v.
A violation of a clearly established state law can only surmount qualified immunity if it embodies the federal right that is the basis of the § 1983 action. Davis v.
Thus, the defendants did not violate the plaintiff’s clearly established federal rights, and therefore they have qualified immunity from plaintiffs § 1983 claims.
-
799 F.3d 600 Sixth Circuit August 24, 2015 No. 14-2235
Clearly Established Although the district court agreed that Baynes established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it ultimately found that Baynes’ claim could not survive summary judgment because it failed the “clearly
This right was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002.”)
The cases in this Circuit place it beyond peradventure that such a right exists; thus, the law is sufficiently clear for the purpose of the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
-
428 F.3d 223 Sixth Circuit November 1, 2005 No. 04-3524Cited by 63 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Zatkoff
Because I find that the alleged Constitutional violation was not “clearly established,” I would grant qualified immunity to the individual defendants. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent as to this issue.
A number of circuit courts of appeal have explained that constitutional rights which require a particularized balancing test, such as the Pickering balancing test in this case, will rarely be “clearly established” for qualified immunity
may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.
-
179 F.3d 996 Sixth Circuit June 9, 1999 No. 98-1471
For the following reasons, we conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because, prior to 1996, it was not clearly established that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act applied to prisoners.
The Fourth Circuit held that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because, prior to 1994, it was not clearly established that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act applied to prisons. See 57 F.3d at 1352 .
established prior to 1996 in order to preclude a finding of qualified immunity.
-
933 F.2d 390 Sixth Circuit May 16, 1991 Nos. 90-5716, 90-5765
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 right.
However, the district court failed to make any explicit findings on the issue of qualified immunity. The court apparently did not determine whether appellants’ conduct violated any of appellee’s clearly established rights.
-
935 F.2d 780 Sixth Circuit August 27, 1991 No. 89-6008
Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”
Before the commencement of discovery, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal if the plaintiff fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law.
clearly established law.
-
858 F.2d 1171 Sixth Circuit October 4, 1988 Nos. 85-3836, 87-3040
The court stated that this decision added to the evidence that clearly established the protected right in this case. Until recently, the controlling Supreme Court case on qualified immunity, Wood v.
Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.”
Telb, 831 F.2d 673 (6th Cir.1987), we held that if a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must plead that any constitutional violation alleged has been clearly established: [Wjhere as here plaintiff seeks
-
756 F.3d 893 Sixth Circuit June 26, 2014 No. 13-4157
Qualified Immunity’s Clearly Established Law and Parratt Our qualified immunity analysis first addresses the sole basis for the district court’s decision: whether Daily Services’ claimed constitutional right was “clearly established
In other words, qualified immunity prevents personal liability in order to allow officials to act in the public interest where the law is not clearly established.
The applicability of Parratt, then, is irrelevant to the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
-
809 F.3d 840 Sixth Circuit December 2, 2015 No. 15-1404
The district court then dismissed — on qualified-immunity grounds — claims related to the in-school interviews because Barber failed to show that clearly established law prohibited that conduct.
We therefore confine our inquiry to the clearly established prong of the qualified-immunity analysis.
Because Barber fails to show that these rights were clearly established at the time of the interviews, Miller enjoys qualified immunity.
-
429 F.3d 586 Sixth Circuit November 18, 2005 No. 18-5936
The district court held that the EMTs were not entitled to qualified immunity because, accepting plaintiff’s allegations, they violated decedent’s clearly established constitutional right to receive competent medical care while in
Decedent’s clearly established constitutional rights were not violated because the decedent was never in custody and the EMTs did nothing to increase the risk of harm to decedent. The EMTs are entitled to qualified immunity.
But once the EMTs raise qualified immunity, Jackson must plead the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).
-
929 F.2d 1111 Sixth Circuit April 3, 1991 Nos. 89-5377, 89-5378, 89-5379
Thus, we venture once more into the labyrinth of deciding what makes a right “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. In Mitchell v.
The Court in Anderson recognized that qualified immunity is not overcome merely by general allegations that a clearly established constitutional right has been violated.
established at the time of the searches for purposes of qualified immunity.
-
36 F.3d 536 Sixth Circuit October 3, 1994 No. 93-5833
After the actions were subsequently consolidated, Kilgore filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity, the absence of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the absence of any contravention of a clearly established
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 person
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. Harlow v.
-
15 F.3d 587 Sixth Circuit February 3, 1994 No. 92-4331
In addition, the court determined that the Officers’ actions violated clearly established law and so rejected their claim for qualified immunity. The Officers now appeal. 1 II.
If so, then in order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that the law regarding this right was “clearly established” at the time that the constitutional violation occurred.
In addition to establishing a constitutional violation, a plaintiff must show that the right in question was “clearly established” to overcome a defense of qualified immunity.
-
179 F.3d 1003 Sixth Circuit June 15, 1999 No. 97-3907
“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”
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 never
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 when
-
845 F.2d 647 Sixth Circuit April 27, 1988 No. 87-5569
We find that defendants’ actions did not violate any of plaintiff’s clearly established rights and therefore affirm the district court’s judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. 1 Plaintiff Peter Garvie served as Head of
The focus in determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity is on the objective legal reasonableness of the official’s actions in light of clearly established law.
The relevant inquiry for this court, in light of defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, is whether Garvie’s asserted property interest was clearly established.
-
583 F.3d 356 Sixth Circuit October 2, 2009 No. 08-3252Cited by 304 Concurrence · Clay
Indeed, the Supreme Court has made absolutely clear that the courts need not “have agreed upon the precise formulation of the [applicable] standard” for a right to be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes: Assuming
In my opinion, that is all that is necessary to reject Defendants’ qualified immunity claims.
Because it is clearly established that officers may not use gratuitous physical force against a criminal suspect who already has been subdued and who does not present a danger to himself or others, Defendants are not entitled to qualified
-
695 F.3d 505 Sixth Circuit August 23, 2012 No. 11-3648
Because the officer did not violate clearly established law by using the taser in this setting, qualified immunity protects him from this lawsuit. We reverse the district court’s contrary decision. I.
Qualified immunity spares Ratcliff from money-damages claims for his law-enforcement work so long as he did not violate the clearly established constitutional rights of Hagans at the time of the encounter. Reichle v.
Tragic though Hagans’ death assuredly is, that regrettable fact cannot transform the state of the law in May 2007, and it cannot alter our duty to grant qualified immunity when an officer has not violated clearly established law.
-
831 F.2d 135 Sixth Circuit October 16, 1987 No. 86-5130Cited by 26 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Jones
The only question we need to answer in addressing the qualified immunity claims of Pershing and Scroggy is whether their actions have violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware.
Accordingly, I would hold that Pershing has violated a clearly established constitutional right, and would not grant him qualified immunity. Similarly, Warden Scroggy should not be entitled to qualified immunity.
Accordingly, I dissent from the court’s grant of qualified immunity to Warden Scroggy.
-
712 F.3d 275 Sixth Circuit March 27, 2013 No. 12-5194
, Sliwowski was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Although denials of summary judgment generally are not appealable, “denials of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage that are based on the district court’s ‘determination about pre-existing clearly established law”’ are
Dragovic, 576 F.3d 539, 544 (6th Cir.2009) (addressing the clearly established prong first in the qualified-immunity analysis).
-
649 F.3d 502 Sixth Circuit August 22, 2011 No. 09-5949
The district court held that Davis’s actions, so viewed, violated Germany’s clearly established constitutional rights, thereby precluding qualified immunity for Davis. We affirm.
Davis moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. This appeal followed. We review the court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. Harrison v.
But the facts, as we must view them, make out a violation of Germany’s clearly established constitutional rights. The district court’s denial of qualified immunity is affirmed.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.