Michael Hoover v. Justin Due -Middle District of Tennessee at Cookeville

6th CircuitSep 17, 2025

Split Score

SplitScore: 37/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified-immunity–based summary judgment to Deputy Justin Due, holding that a reasonable jury could find his warrantless entry into Michael Hoover’s home and subsequent use of force unconstitutional. Applying existing Sixth Circuit precedent, the panel ruled that exigent circumstances and reasonableness of force presented jury questions and that, under the facts most favorable to Hoover, Due violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether the existence of exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless home entry in a §1983 civil case is a question of fact for the jury (reviewed deferentially) or a question of law reviewed de novo by appellate courts.

Circuit Positions

6th Circuit(this circuit)

Exigent-circumstances determination is a factual question for the jury; appellate review is deferential when reasonable minds could differ.

5th Circuit7th Circuit8th Circuit

Exigent-circumstances determination is a legal (mixed) question decided de novo by courts.

Conflict Summary

The Sixth Circuit treats the exigent-circumstances determination as a factual issue: if reasonable minds could disagree, the question goes to the jury and appellate review is for genuine disputes of fact. The Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits treat the same determination as a legal (mixed) question that appellate courts decide de novo, even in civil §1983 actions.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Deputy Justin Due
Appellee:Michael Hoover

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Benjamin K. Lauderback, Watson, Roach, Batson & Lauderback, P.L.C., Knoxville, Tennessee
Appellee:Benjamin K. Raybin, Raybin & Weissman, P.C., Nashville, Tennessee

Opinion Document