Case law

United States v. Vishnu Meda

812 F.3d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 23, 2015

Page 10 The requirements for admitting statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) are well established. … Contrary to Javidan’s assertion, the record clearly reveals that Mr. Shannon was her coconspirator. Prior to his employment at Acure, Shahab employed Mr. Shannon at Patient Choice.

Wilcox v. Lewis

47 F. App'x 714 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 13, 2002

immunity; (5) the district court should have granted his motion for a TRO; and (6) the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendants because both sides had requested a jury trial. … The defendants were entitled to summary judgment because Wilcox did not establish either the objective or the subjective components of an Eighth Amendment claim. See Farmer v.

Picha v. City of Parma

958 F.2d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 1992

The court first held that Ries and Vittardi were entitled to qualified immunity. … he or she violates clearly established federal "statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Dominique Edgerson v. City of Southfield

529 F. App'x 493 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 25, 2013

, and, if so, (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … entitled to qualified immunity.

Devon Tindle v. L. Enochs

420 F. App'x 561 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 26, 2011

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions [are to be] shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was violated and that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Myslakowski v. United States

806 F.2d 94 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 26, 1986

(Emphasis added.) 21 The district court found that the departmental decision to dispose of the jeep was a "policy-based discretionary" decision: 22 "[T]he Government's decision to sell the jeeps to the public was clearly … thought to the need for warnings even in view of the Cornell Report, is not to say that the considerations unaddressed are therefore outside the ambit of the discretionary judgment exception to the statute and a basis for establishing

Naomi L. Sims, United States of America, Intervenor v. The University of Cincinnati

219 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2000

We agree with the parties and the lower court that Congress has clearly expressed its intent to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity to actions under the FMLA, thus satisfying the first of these two requirements … When a state practice does not expressly concern gender, but has a disparate impact, a plaintiff in constitutional litigation must establish that the State intends to discriminate on the basis of gender.

William Fowler v. Steve Burns

447 F. App'x 659 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 2011

The law accounts for these mistakes by providing officers with immunity from suit unless their “conduct violate[s] a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 816 (2009). … The detectives are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim as well.

Norman Purnell, Administrator of the Estate of Armstead Land v. City of Akron, John Livers, John Gilbride, Robert Kroah, and Daniel Gorring

977 F.2d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 1992

in not granting them qualified immunity. … If the right involved is not "clearly established" at the time of the official action, a reasonable official cannot have known he was violating a constitutional right, and qualified immunity should be granted.

Kenneth Wadkins v. Kristyn Klingshirn

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 2026

was entitled to qualified immunity. … At summary judgment, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity “when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional

Lawrence E. Anthony, Jr. v. Btr Automotive Sealing Systems, Inc.

339 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 8, 2003

Intertribal Council Title TV J.T.P.A., 261 F.3d 1032, 1034 (11th Cir.2001) (affirming dismissal of § 1981 claims on qualified immunity grounds and not reaching statute of limitations issue), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1066 , … Accordingly, Anthony was not qualified for the position, and he has failed to establish a prima facie case.

Lloyd Marks v. Newcourt Credit Group, Inc.

342 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2003

In their initial denial of Marks’s claim for benefits, the plan administrators explained that Marks’s actual termination was a condition precedent to establishing a qualifying termination under the plan. … After defining and establishing the deadline for a “qualifying termination,” the committee concluded that Marks had not suffered a qualifying termination because “the Company had not terminated [his] employment ‘prior to

Hadiya AbdulShalaam v. Franklin County Board of Comm'rs

399 F. App'x 62 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2010

Plaintiffs did not argue before the district court that temporal proximity alone sufficed to establish intent. … Conclusion We dismiss Spires’s qualified immunity appeal for lack of jurisdiction, adopt and affirm the district court’s absolute immunity and state statutory immunity judgments, deny the cross-appeal as moot

Perry v. Southeastern Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc.

154 F. App'x 467 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 2006

Southeastern’s Federal Sovereign Immunity Defense Southeastern claims that it is an arm of an agency of the federal government and, therefore, is immune from this suit. … See Johnson, 40 F.3d at 839 (“Plaintiff must also establish that the conspiracy was motivated by a class-based animus.”); Griffin v.

Daiva Richardson and Ronnie Richardson v. City of South Euclid Arnold C. D'Amico Jack Clifford James Farrell and John Doe

904 F.2d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 26, 1990

But immunity is another question, a possible defense. The majority does not even attempt to reach any such immunity issues or discuss the rule established by Monell v. … First, while Carey held that damages will not be presumed, it clearly held that if a person can prove actual damages caused by a deprivation of due process, he or she should recover.

Wallace Butler, Also Known as Burton Wallace v. Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Fayette County Sheriff's Department

25 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 16, 1994

25 F.3d 1047 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished … Claims that lack an arguable basis in law include claims for which the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.

Osborn v. Haley

422 F.3d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2005

Page 3 employment/immunity issue against Haley’s entitlement to immunity. … Because a case under the Westfall Act thus ‘raises a question of substantive federal law at the very outset, it clearly arises under federal law, as that term is used in Art.

Daniels v. Board of Education of the Ravenna City School District

805 F.2d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 1986

The district court’s finding on the issue of discrimination “is subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard of Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. … However, her prior experience rendered her more qualified than plaintiff for the position.

Cold Metal Process Co. v. Republic Steel Corp.

233 F.2d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 1956

Peninsular Light, Power & Heat Co., 6 Cir., 101 F. 831 , it is clearly applicable here. … As found by the District Court, no misuse of the patents by Cold Metal was established.

John Satawa v. Macomb County Road Commission

689 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2012

After seeking legal advice, the county denied the permit because, it stated, the crèche “clearly displays a religious message, [and thus displaying it on the median] would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the … Satawa desires to place in the right of way clearly displays a religious message, this would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: “Establishment Clause, at the very least