Case law

George F. Onifer v. Zbigniew Tyszkiewicz, Warden

255 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2001

Our examination of the relevant Supreme Court precedent convinces us that the due process analysis relied upon by the district court was not clearly established federal *317 law at the time Onifer’s conviction became final … The decision of the Michigan courts to reject Onifer’s constitutional claims was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.

Daretha Braziel v. Gretchen Whitmer

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 2024

The district court granted qualified immunity to a number of individuals but denied Muhammad’s and O’Malley’s claims of qualified immunity. … , and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Anestis Ex Rel. Estate of Anestis v. United States

749 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 2014

Curiously, it is also the VA’s position that an intake clerk, such as McIntosh, was not qualified to make an assessment as to whether the veteran was in an emergency situation. … Accordingly, the instant case is clearly distinguishable from Beamon. Other circuits have expounded on the issue.

Island Creek Kentucky Mining v. Roy Ramage, Sr.

737 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 17, 2013

Repsher reviewed were qualifying under federal standards. Id. … In the case of a living miner, a wife’s affidavit may not be used by itself to establish the presumption.

Kirk Alford, Sr. v. Det. James Vernier

524 F. App'x 157 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2013

The district court also found that the plaintiffs had the burden “to demonstrate that the officers [we]re not entitled to qualified immunity,” but that they “ha[d] not directed the Court to any case that clearly shows that … Officer Meier’s conduct clearly violated [Alford’s] constitutional rights,” concluding, therefore, that Meier was entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Geisen

612 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 15, 2010

Consequently, “[t]o establish a violation of § 1001, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity,” United States v. … The Biaggi court held that “the probative force of a rejected immunity offer is clearly strong enough to render it relevant” because an immunity offer would “preclude all exposure to a conviction and its consequences.” 909

Craft v. United States

233 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 22, 2000

Clearly Erroneous and Manifest Injustice The IRS looks first to the third exception, arguing that this court can revisit the issues decided by the Craft I panel because that panel’s decision was clearly erroneous and would … Thus, as the Craft I panel was presented with no binding precedent that overruled Cole , we cannot say that its decision was clearly erroneous. 8 In finding that our decision in Craft I was not clearly erroneous, we acknowledge

Karen F. Peltier v. United States

388 F.3d 984 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 28, 2004

For example, Peltier's unique access to the sensitive information that the agency suspected was leaked— particularly the information concerning the Ramada Inn, which was noted on the napkin in the suspect's residence — clearly … In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, Peltier must show that: (1) she is a disabled person under the Act; (2) she is otherwise qualified; and (3) she was denied

United States v. Marlon Johnson

95 F.4th 404 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 2024

Shinault, 147 F.3d 1266, 1272 (10th Cir. 1998)) Establishing comparative disparity requires some math. … In situations “where the law at the time of trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law at the time of appeal[,] it is enough that the error be ‘plain’ at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v.

In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig.

937 F.3d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 2019

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the  No. 19-3064 … The district court therefore clearly erred in concluding to the contrary.

United States v. Wright

43 F. App'x 848 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 7, 2002

However, where examination of the statute does not clearly establish whether the prior conviction is qualifying, we allow the inquiry to proceed one level deeper and “look at the charge in the indictment to which the defendant … non-qualifying.

Bertha Steele v. City of Cleveland

375 F. App'x 536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 28, 2010

Defendants have invoked qualified immunity, which “shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Thus, as the district court concluded, the defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ronald Richardson v. City of Dayton

948 F.2d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 1991

Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded a qualified immunity shielding them from civil liability as long as their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time [the action] was taken."

Carol L. Kirchner GAFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

997 F.2d 150 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 18, 1993

Waiters' & Dairy Lunchmen's Union Local 30, 694 F.2d 531 , 543-44 (9th Cir.1982) ("Applying the clearly erroneous standard to the district court’s determination that an employment discrimination plaintiff failed to establish … Hughes Helicopters, Inc., 708 F.2d 475, 480 (9th Cir.1983) ("Our past cases are divided as to whether our review of a lower court's ultimate finding regarding establishment of a prima facie case is de novo or under a 'clearly

Mendy Barnett v. Dep't of Children's Services

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 2020

Equally ill-advised is defining a clearly established law too rigidly. Qualified immunity, after all, must give government officers “breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments,” Kent v. … clearly established law inquiry.

Ignatius G. ANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

932 F.2d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 8, 1991

Ang contends that because John Dashiells, a Caucasian, replaced him, and because he performed satisfactorily for fourteen years, he was qualified and replaced by someone outside the protected group and thus had established … Ang, then, was not qualified and thus did not establish a prima facie case.

John Heykoop v. Mich. State Police

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 2020

State Police The defendants also moved for summary judgment, based in part on qualified immunity, arguing that a towing company’s remaining on a police call list is not a clearly established property interest. … Qualified immunity shields government officials in the performance of discretionary functions from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person

Carl Sanderson, D/B/A Cue Room Family Billiards v. Village of Greenhills

726 F.2d 284 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 1, 1984

After three weeks of remodeling, during which time a sign clearly visible from the street announced the nature of the new business, Sanderson opened his establishment at 4:00 p.m. on August 24, 1982. … In order to maintain an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a person must show that he has been deprived of a “right[ ], privilege[ ], or immunity] secured by the Constitution” by another person acting “under color of any statute

Gary Arnett v. Gary T. Myers, Executive Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

281 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2002

Sovereign Immunity. … Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity does not bar the Arnetts’ claims in this case.

Christopher Harvey v. Darryl Carr

616 F. App'x 826 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 25, 2015

The district court determined that Carr was entitled to qualified immunity and granted his motion for summary judgment. Harvey appeals. … Because the district court granted summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, we determine whether—viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Harvey—Carr’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional