Case law

Marjorie Glasson v. City of Louisville

518 F.2d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 13, 1975

He qualified this answer later in his testimony when he stated that he would not have taken it unless “trouble engulfed or started or was created.” … In affirming, we held “that § 1985(3)’s protection reaches clearly defined classes, such as supporters of a political candidate.

Niswander v. Cincinnati Insurance

529 F.3d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

In order to establish a prima fa-cie case of retaliation under Title VII, an employee must establish that (1) he or she engaged in protected activity, (2) the employer knew of the exercise of the protected right, (3) an adverse … An employee’s dissemination of confidential documents in other situations, however, might qualify as participatory.

Beverly K. Barton v. Paul G. Summers, Harshell C. Downs, Jr. Kathleen D. Downs v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

293 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2002

If the settlement were already paid over as a lump sum, Plaintiffs would clearly have no case: the States’ established property interest would be unassailable. … In Coeur d’Alene, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment establishing their rights to certain lands.

David Clark v. N. Johnston

413 F. App'x 804 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 25, 2011

Clark claims that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because he presented enough evidence to establish a constitutional violation. … Clark moved for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity in June 2008.

Snow Pallet, Inc. v. Clinton County Industrial Development Authority

46 F. App'x 787 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2002

BACKGROUND Defendant Clinton County Industrial Development Authority (“CCIDA”) was established by the Clinton County Fiscal Court pursuant to the Local Industrial Authority Act. See KY. REV. STAT. … State Sovereign Immunity CCIDA’s Immunity Snow Pallet appeals the district court’s determination that CCIDA and its directors are immune from suit under state law.

Dr. Alexander v. Spaeth v. United States

232 F.2d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 1956

United States, 323 U.S. 606 , 65 S.Ct. 548 , 89 L.Ed. 495 , to the effect that, in prosecutions for perjury, the uncorroborated testimony of one witness is insufficient to establish the falsity of the testimony of the accused … United States, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 644, 647 , was directly in point and clearly compelled reversal of the judgment of the district court in the Sandroff case and remand of the case for a new trial.

Laura Hudak v. Elmcroft of Sagamore Hills

58 F.4th 845 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 23, 2023

The PREP Act creates one exception to its grant of immunity. … Here, Elmcroft has not met its burden of establishing that it was “acting under” a federal officer within the meaning of § 1442(a)(1).

Kimberly Schulz v. David Gendregske

544 F. App'x 620 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2013

“Determinations of qualified immunity require us to answer two questions: first, whether the officer violated a constitutional right; and second, whether that right was clearly established in light of the specific context … As noted above, “qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Wayne Joiner v. Thomas Goodall Bill Zoto

52 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 1995

This defendant clearly enjoys absolute immunity from suit for damages on the basis of the acts alleged. See Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286, 288 (1991); King v. … Love, 766 F.2d 962, 965-68 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 (1985). 4 The district court concluded that the city codes inspector enjoys absolute immunity from suit from damages under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity

Royal Geropsychiatric Services, Inc. v. Tompkins

159 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 1998

The plaintiffs argue that the term "coinsurance," contained in subparagraph (B), "is clearly meant to be broad." … , except in special circumstances where Congress has abrogated immunity or a state has waived it.

Flint v. Metlife Insurance

460 F. App'x 483 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 2011

Judge Heyburn denied the motion, concluding that his ruling in a prior case was an insufficient basis to establish prejudice. … The state defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that Flint’s claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

United States v. Herbert Marsh

95 F.4th 464 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 2024

That said, the standard of objective reasonableness in this context “is not as forgiving as the [standard] employed in the distinct context of deciding whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a constitutional … And the Supreme Court in Heien clarified that the reasonable-mistake-of-law defense leaves less room for police errors than the qualified- immunity defense that bars damages claims against officers who do not violate clearly

United States v. Antoine Thompson

119 F.4th 445 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 9, 2024

The district court further emphasized that “[t]he § 1118 text itself includes no requirement that the underlying life sentence be valid, constitutional, or immune to collateral challenges.” Id. at PageID 723. … A “well established rule of the common law” rebuts this causation defense. Commonwealth v. Hackett, 2 Allen 136, 141 (Mass. 1861).

Johnson v. Turner

125 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 1997

These judicial officers were clearly performing their statutory duty to establish paternity and enforce child support payments in a manner that was specifically authorized by statute. … Turner, 626 F.2d 1 , 5 & n. 11 (1980), clearly established the burden that plaintiffs such as Hill and Luellen are required to meet in order to have standing to request injunctive and declaratory relief.

Meyers v. Columbia Hca Healthcare Corporation

341 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 2003

physicians, and to grant qualified immunity from damages for those who participate in peer review activities. … Defendants in this case clearly satisfied the first three factors.

Angel v. Kentucky

314 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 23, 2002

"When the defendant challenges subject matter jurisdiction through a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction." Hedgepeth, 215 F.3d at 611 . 8 C. … We must therefore address the jurisdictional question that clearly exists, even though it was not addressed by the court below. See Wilson-Jones v.

Reeves v. Williamson

127 F.2d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 17, 1942

Postal savings depositories are established by the federal government .in accordance with Title 39, U.S.C., Section 751 et seq., 39 U.S.C.A. § 751 et seq. … The funds received are. required to be deposited in solvent banks in the city, town, village or locality in which the deposit is made, or if there is no qualified bank in that locality, in the bank most convenient thereto

Knology, Inc. v. Insight Communications Co., L.P., Insight Kentucky Partners, L.P.

460 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2006

Thus it does not establish that Insight was a prevailing party on all of Knology’s claims, nor can it be said that our present review involves the district court’s application of a prior mandate from this Court. … First, the district court’s determination that Knology did prevail on some of its claims is not clearly erroneous.

Coal Operators and Associates, Inc. Phelps Coal and Land Co. And Roy Seagraves v. Bruce Babbitt, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of the Interior

291 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 3, 2002

While we affirm the district court, we do so because plaintiffs failed to establish federal jurisdiction. I. … Section 1231(d) clearly requires that money in the Fund must first be appropriated by Congress before it can be used for the designated purposes.

Landrum v. Mitchell

625 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2010

Because the Ohio courts denied Landrum relief on this claim under state law and there is no clearly established federal constitutional right to compel the immunization of a witness by a trial court, Landrum is not entitled … More importantly, whatever the case law from the circuit courts may say, Landrum has not shown that a right to have witnesses immunized by the trial court was “clearly established” by Supreme Court precedent at the time of