Case law

James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. The Klages Coal and Ice Company, D/B/A Royal Crown Bottling Company

435 F.2d 377 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 10, 1970

The employee may qualify as an employee employed in the capacity of outside salesman if, and only if, the facts clearly indicate that he is employed for the purpose of making sales and that he is customarily and regularly … only if, the facts clearly indicate that he is customarily and regularly engaged in such activity,” we hold that the *383 finding of the District Court on the issue of exemption was clearly erroneous.

Gardner v. Nashville Housing Authority

468 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 1972

We held in the Greeneville case that subject matter jurisdiction was established, but that the case should not have proceeded without HUD as an indispensable party. … We think this is clearly a case of federal question jurisdiction.

Barbara A. Brandenburg v. R.L. Murphy, Harry E. Cureton, Warren G. Hatfield, Calvin O. Morton, Roy W. Sharp, and Mark D. Wright

936 F.2d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 1991

Although the government officials bear the burden of establishing qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of "present[ing] facts which if true, would constitute a violation of clearly … C. 21 While Brandenburg's abstract right to be from false arrest was clearly established at the time of her arrest, it was not, and is not, clearly established that Murphy's actions violated that right.

Clinton D. Brown v. Earthboard Sports Usa, Inc. Hugh Jeffreys Jeffrey A. Vaughn Lincoln Financial Advisors Corporation, D/B/A Sagemark Consulting

481 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 16, 2007

Brown claims that an offering must actually meet the conditions established by the SEC regulation in order to qualify as a “covered security” exempted from state registration requirements by NSMIA. … "It is clearly within Congress’ powers to establish an exclusive federal forum to adjudicate issues of federal law in a particular area that Congress has the authority to regulate under the Constitution.

Sandra A. Boddie v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. Geraldo Rivera Charles C. Thompson and Maravilla Production Company, Inc.

881 F.2d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 1989

The 1986 amendment to section 2511(2) clearly affected “substantive rights and liabilities.” … At the same time, newsgathering does “qualify for First Amendment protection.” Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681 , 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2656 , 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972).

Horn ex rel. Parks v. Madison County Fiscal Court

22 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 1994

Even assuming appellant would have been able to establish the Juvenile Justice Act was violated, the trial proofs clearly fail to demonstrate that such violation was a proximate cause of his injury. In Doe v. … Appellant insists the requirements were relevant to establish that Ron Devere was deliberately indifferent to his federally secured rights.

In the Matter of Grand Jury Investigation (Detroit Police Department Special Cash Fund)

922 F.2d 1266 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 1991

Pursuant to a grant of immunity, Witness appeared and testified before the grand jury on July 18, 1990. … The informer’s privilege is a creature of the common law designed to provide the government with a qualified immunity to withhold from disclosure the identity of individuals who furnish information of criminal activity to

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant

733 F.2d 1183 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 18, 1984

The District Court held that Chrysler’s decision to identify certain employees for involuntary retirement was clearly based on age because “those over 55 with requisite corporate service were involuntarily retired with no … The District Court reasoned that the legislative history of the 1978 amendment to section 4(f)(2) of the ADEA establishes that the qualifying statutory terms were meant to legitimate only forced retirements based on an individual

United States v. McCauley

548 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 25, 2008

To attack a district court’s suppression hearing credibility determination, a defendant must establish that the district court’s conclusion was clearly erroneous. Id. … Based on clearly established precedent and the language of the ACCA, his prior offenses clearly subject him to sentencing under the ACCA. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the ruling of the district court. 1 .

Jennifer Hall v. Terry Carl

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 17, 2023

immunity,’” and “the issue appealed concerned . . . whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.” … Schaffield also raises concerns unrelated to qualified immunity.

Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. City Of Pontiac

887 F.2d 710 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 13, 1989

The district court decided that defendants could claim neither qualified immunity nor a state action anti-trust exemption. 9 On appeal, another panel of this court affirmed that the defendants could not claim qualified immunity … Sec. 1983 . 15 Section 1983 authorizes the courts to redress violations of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal] laws" that occur under color of state law.

McGraw v. Madison Township

231 F. App'x 419 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2007

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Finally, the defendants do not dispute that illegal searches, seizures, and arrests constitute clearly established constitutional violations.

Vernon Dahl, III v. Jermaine Kilgore

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2021

The court further held that, because Dahl’s right was clearly established at the time of the encounter, Kilgore was not entitled to qualified immunity. … The relevant question of law in a qualified immunity case is “whether the law clearly proscribed the actions [of] the defendant” and “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established

Ruth Booker, an Infant, by Dovie Booker, Her Mother and Next Friend v. State of Tennessee Board of Education

240 F.2d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 1957

The Supreme Court there pointed out that a federal question may be unsubstantial “because it is ‘obviously without merit’ or because ‘its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose … The Board is authorized to establish a limit to the number of admissions, but the Board is not authorized to establish limitations based upon race or color. As stated by Chief Justice Hughes in Missouri ex rel.

BPNC, Inc. v. Taft

147 F. App'x 525 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2005

In civil suits for money damages pursuant to § 1983, qualified immunity protects State Defendants “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … [we] ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201).

Ammex, Inc. v. John Durant

381 F. App'x 482 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 2010

Governmental officials performing discretionary functions are generally granted qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.”

United States v. Dennis Dempsey

733 F.2d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 12, 1984

Each indictment did charge at least one overt act, whether required to do so or not, and the court held that the proof must establish that at least one of the overt acts took place. … The credibility determination of the district judge is entitled to great deference and his finding of fact may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.

Woodruff v. Tomlin

616 F.2d 924 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 21, 1980

Tennessee law gives the trial lawyer only a qualified privilege or immunity. Like the standard applicable to certain officials under federal law, see Butz v. … They are given a qualified privilege, based on honesty and good faith, because of the nature of their work.

Graham v. Hawk

59 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 1995

59 F.3d 170 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 or rational 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; claims that lack

Jay L. Caplan and Eva M. Caplan v. United States

877 F.2d 1314 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 30, 1989

We hold that the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act does not immunize the government from liability for Caplan’s injuries. II. … “[A] finding of negligence or the absence thereof will not be set aside unless the District Court’s determination is ‘clearly erroneous,’ under [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 52.”