.

Case Law Alerts

A Neck-Hold Is Not Clearly-Established Excessive Force

Moore v. Oakland County, Michigan, 126 F.4th 1163 (6th Cir. 2025)

April 1, 2025

by Jillian L. Dinehart

This § 1983 lawsuit was filed against a police officer after a confrontation during a traffic stop in which the plaintiff resisted compliance. Despite the district court denying the officer’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision, ruling that the officer did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court noted that while excessive force cannot be used on non-violent suspects, the level of force applied in this case, including grabbing the plaintiff’s arm and holding her head down briefly, did not meet the threshold for excessive force.

The plaintiff was stopped by Officer Wilson for speeding. She refused to show her ID and moved her hands to the center console where the officer could not see them. In response, Officer Wilson ordered her out of the vehicle, then tried to open the driver’s side door, which was locked. Officer Wilson reached through the window to grab the plaintiff’s arm and ordered her to shut the car off. The plaintiff leaned away from the officer and refused to turn off the car. Officer Wilson opened the door from the inside then grabbed the plaintiff’s arm, and she tried to twist away from him. Officer Wilson called for back-up but pulled the plaintiff’s arm out of the car with one hand and held her neck down with the other. The plaintiff continued to struggle. Backup officers arrived, and the plaintiff was taken into custody. Eventually, all charged were dropped against the plaintiff. 

The incident resulted in a § 1983 lawsuit against Officer Wilson. The district court denied Officer Wilson’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, concluding that a jury could determine he violated the plaintiff’s well-established Fourth Amendment rights.

In reviewing qualified immunity, the Sixth Circuit found that in this matter, the officer did not violate a clearly established right. The court cited to the principle that an officer may not subdue a non-violent, non-resisting or only passively resisting suspect with physical force, such as Tasing, pepper-spraying or beating them. In contrast, the court also considered that if an arrestee kicks, flails and wriggles away from an arresting officer’s grasp, then the officer may use a Taser to restrain him. 

In finding that it was not clearly established that Officer Wilson used excessive force in grabbing the plaintiff’s arm and holding her head down for two minutes, the court found that this force is much less than those cases that permit the use of Tasing. Nor did the court find that these holds would have been excessive force had there been aligned case law that clearly established the right. 

 

Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

Superior Court Upholds Stacking Waiver Despite Substituted‑Vehicle Policy Amendment

In this non-precedential decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court confirmed the precedent set by prior decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that substitution of an automobile on an insurance policy does not require that a new waiver of stacked underinsured motorist coverage in order for the previously, valid stacking waiver to remain valid. In this case, Erie had issued an insurance policy to Beutler insuring four vehicles and Beutler had signed a waiver of stacked UIM coverage. Later, Beutler had purchased a new vehicle, replacing one of the four previously listed on the policy. Erie issued an amended policy indicating that the prior auto had been “deleted” and the new auto had been “added.” Beutler later died in a motor vehicle accident and his estate made a claim for stacked UIM benefits under the Erie Policy. Erie brought a declaratory judgment action asking the court to confirm that Beutler’s estate was not entitled to stacked UIM coverage. The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Erie where the trial court had held that the original stacking waiver signed by Beutler remained in effect on the date of the accident because when he had substituted the new auto, no new UIM coverage was purchased and a new waiver was not required. The estate argued that Erie’s usage of “deleted” and “added” on the amended declarations page rendered the amendment a purchase of new UIM coverage and not a substitution, requiring Erie to obtain a new executed stacking waiver. However, the Superior Court noted, “[r]egardless of the language used by the amendment, the policy covered four vehicles prior to the amendment and covered four vehicles after the amendment, with exactly the same amount of monetary coverage.” The Superior Court also affirmed the trial court’s granting of a protective order in favor of Erie, protecting Erie from discovery sought by the estate that would “answer the question of why the . . . amendment indicated ‘AUTO 3 DELETED. AUTO 5 ADDED’ as opposed to using the word ‘replacement’ or ‘replaced’.” While the estate argued that such discovery was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the Superior Court disagreed and noted that the estate failed to explain how Erie using the word “replacement” would constitute a purchase of UIM coverage and thereby requiring a new stacking waiver. While this decision of the Superior Court has been marked as “non-precedential,” it is nonetheless available to be cited as persuasive authority. The decision here confirms that the relevant analysis as to whether a new UIM stacking waiver required is the amount of UIM coverage at issue, and whether there has been an expansion or not. What the Superior Court makes clear, however, is that the language used in the policy amendments has no bearing on this analysis.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle