Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Perez v. Oakland County

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided October 18, 2006No. 05-1583Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKaren Nelson Moore, Circuit Judge

I agree with Judge Cudahy in Part II. A.1 that summary judgment should not be granted on the issue of whether Rice committed a constitutional violation. However, I do not believe that the grant of qualified immunity to Rice is justified in this case, and I therefore respectfully dissent.

We assess claims of qualified immunity according to a three-step test:1

First, we determine whether, based upon the applicable law, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff ] show that a constitutional violation has occurred. Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Carolyn Comstock v. Norris McCrary v. S. Thyagarajan and David HowellCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
  2. Thomas L. Feathers Kathleen Feathers v. William Aey J.P. Donohue, City of AkronCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  3. Christopher Sample v. Jason BaileyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
  4. Danese v. AsmanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
  5. Perez v. Oakland CountyDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API