Case law

United States v. Derek Benton

639 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 17, 2011

Potential Prejudice to the Government “[T]he government is not required to establish prejudice that would result from a plea withdrawal, unless and until the defendant advances and establishes a fair and just reason … It has already been established that the crime of aggravated assault has as an element the use or threat of force, and therefore qualifies as a “violent felony” for ACCA purposes.3 The initial question we must address, then

Watts v. Antkoviak

129 F. App'x 227 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 2005

According to Day, established principles of absolute judicial immunity or qualified immunity insulate him from liability in this action. … The Qualified Immunity Claim Defendant Day asserts that, even if he cannot claim the protections from suit afforded by the principles of absolute immunity, he is entitled to qualified immunity from the allegations

Buchanan v. Knoxville & O. R. Co.

71 F. 324 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 1895

W. 1045 , as establishing a different doctrine. We do not understand that to be the effect of the decision in that case. … But if the intent clearly appears the court is bound, without evasion, to give it effect.

Irma Howard v. Samuel Pierce, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Grand Rapids Housing Commission

738 F.2d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 1984

This waiver of sovereign immunity is some evidence of a general intent to permit an action against *728 HUD. 11 The sovereign immunity provision does not, however, indicate whether Congress intended private enforcement of … Clearly, a private remedy which would interfere with the Act’s underlying purpose could not be implied.

Maxine B. Cousin v. Don Sundquist State Election Commission Brook Thompson Hamilton County Election Commission Carolyn Jackson

145 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 1998

The district court’s finding to this effect is not clearly erroneous. … We do not agree that this factor clearly supports a finding of vote dilution under these circumstances. 8.

Donald L. Mains and Joyce G. Mains v. United States of America, F. E. Gooding v. United States

508 F.2d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 1975

Distributions from Thrills Unlimited must qualify independently, if they qualify at all. … In the case of Section 346(a)(2), qualification depends upon whether plaintiffs can establish that the distributions were “not essentially equivalent to a dividend.”

Carmen's East, Inc. v. Huggins

995 F.2d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 21, 1993

The district court held that the facts as alleged did not support a finding of qualified immunity. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 (1987) (Discussing the meaning of "clearly established"). 5 The plaintiffs have a clearly established right to access to the courts that is part of the right of petition of the First Amendment

Ricky A. White v. Ronald Harmon Ronald Clewett and Keith Blanchard

65 F.3d 169 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 31, 1995

A. 10 Because the defendants claim qualified immunity for their actions, the relevant question is the " 'objective legal reasonableness' of the action[s] ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were 'clearly established … III. 19 To summarize, we AFFIRM the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity as to Officer Clewett; REVERSE the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity as to Officers Harmon and Blanchard; and DECLINE to

Gordon v. City of Warren

579 F.2d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 1978

This pleading also relied on qualified immunity of the individual defendants, stating that they acted in their official capacities, in good faith and without ill-will or malice. … The claims against individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 may be subject to dismissal by summary judgment upon further development of the defense of qualified immunity. See Hanna v. Drobnick, supra.

United States v. William T. Wuliger

981 F.2d 1497 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 1992

Walder was the first case to establish an impeachment exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. … But this testimony doesn’t establish that the defendant knew of this fact. In terms of what the defendant knew, Mr.

Phillip Modrell v. Jon Hayden

436 F. App'x 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2011

(2) whether that right was clearly established. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the law in existence at the time of the incident did not clearly establish that his conduct would violate the Constitution. Brosseau v.

Mary Patrick Latham v. The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio

395 F.3d 261 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2005

Sovereign Immunity and the ADEA Under the Eleventh Amendment, a State may not be sued in federal court unless it has consented to such a suit or its immunity has been properly abrogated by Congress. … In Kimel , the Court clearly stated that “age is not a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause.” Id. at 83 , 120 S.Ct. 631 .

Zantello v. Shelby Township

277 F. App'x 570 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2008

In addressing qualified immunity claims, we must adhere to the “rigid order of battle,” Brosseau v. … We also agree with the district court that this constitutional claim was “clearly established.”

Stolaj v. Holder

577 F.3d 651 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 2009

Berishaj’s testimony clearly implicated the Stolajs in a fraudulent scheme to obtain asylum. … To the extent that the Stolajs attack the IJ’s factual determinations, the Stolajs do not make any arguments that show how the IJ clearly erred. .

Dominique Slayton v. City of River Rouge, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 7, 2022

of qualified immunity. Id. at 705–06. … whether the federal right allegedly infringed was “clearly established.”

Anthony Sevy v. Philip Barach

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2020

On the First Amendment claim, Barach has demonstrated that Sevy’s asserted First Amendment right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, so Barach is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim … Therefore, Sevy’s First Amendment right was not clearly established, so Barach is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. See Pearson v.

Gerald Lindsly v. Michael Worley

423 F. App'x 516 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 13, 2011

of clearly established law.’” … Defendants do not contend that this issue is inextricably intertwined with the denial of qualified immunity.

Richard Vogel v. The City of Cincinnati, the Sentinel Police Association, Intervenor-Appellee

959 F.2d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 13, 1992

It established a long term goal of having the proportion of blacks and women in the sworn ranks of the Cincinnati Police Division approximate the proportion of qualified blacks and women in Cincinnati’s work force. … When selecting from the Open Eligible List, the City accords preference to qualified blacks and women as necessary to meet, if possible, *597 the interim goal established by the consent decree of having recruit classes that

Walsh v. Cuyahoga Cnty

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 2005

Allan was not entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. Walsh’s right to a pre-termination hearing was clearly established by Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985). Mr. … clearly established law.”

Leadbetter v. Gilley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 2004

Moreover, Gilley had no reason to district court also found that Gilley was entitled to qualified believe that Leadbetter would be interested in a position immunity. … McDonnell Douglas qualified for the General Counsel position. However, the Corp. v.