Case law

Theodore L. Baetens and Joyce R. Baetens v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Donald L. Benbow Patricia J. Benbow Daniel W. Cass, Jr. Barbara Cass Earl R. Lueckel Lois E. Lueckel Frederic E. Saunders Mary Alice Saunders William H. Strong and Ella K. Strong v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

777 F.2d 1160 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 1985

We hold that section 402(a)(5) does not apply to such distributions from trusts not qualified at the time of distribution. 2 In the first of the cases, Stan's Trucking Company established a profit-sharing plan and related … Electric Cord established a pension plan which the IRS determined to be qualified as of 1959 and 1963 under section 401(a). The related trust was thus exempt under section 501(a) and qualified under section 402(a)(5).

Adrian Energy v. MI Pub Serv

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 2007

As in that case, Michigan “has enacted and is operating its own authorized program” under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and has established a coherent policy under its law concerning regulation of qualifying … As in Coalition for Health Concern, federal review at this juncture would be disruptive of Michigan’s efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to regulation of qualifying facilities, particularly as the Michigan

Monica Johnson v. City of Memphis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2010

Tennessee courts will not find a waiver of sovereign immunity “unless there is a statute clearly and unmistakably 2 We specifically acknowledge the importance in these situations of the information … The TGTLA removes immunity for “injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of any employee within the scope of his employment,” but provides a list of exceptions to this removal of immunity. Tenn.

General Telephone Co. Of Ohio v. Communications Workers of America, Afl-Cio

648 F.2d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 1981

Cases relied upon by the Employer-Company are cases of arbitrators clearly exceeding their contractual authority. … The right of the Company to establish, determine, maintain and enforce standards of telephone service is fully recognized. The Company shall not be required to meet established work standards.

State of Ohio v. Charles E. Wright, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper

992 F.2d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 30, 1993

This has been the established rule under § 1447(d) and its predecessors stretching back to 1887.”); Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Tel. … “As a result, it is clear that Congress has manifested an intent to immunize local governments through the adoptive seizure federal forfeiture laws, therefore, establishing a complete preemption of this area of federal law

Vanessa Enoch v. Hamilton Cnty. Sheriff's Office

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2024

However, because Nieves was decided after Enoch and Corbin’s arrest, its exception to the probable cause requirement was not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. Id. … In discussing the plaintiffs’ speech-based retaliation claim, we held that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law held that an officer could be liable for retaliating against

21 Employee Benefits Cas. 2842, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23940s Walter J. Borda v. Hardy, Lewis, Pollard & Page, P.C. Hardy, Lewis, Pollard & Page, P.C. Profit Sharing Plan and David M. Davis and Patrick M. Higdon, the Plan's Named Fiduciaries

138 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 1998

Borda had been a participant was intended to be a qualified plan, and it contained a provision designed to comply with § 411(d)(3). … Flanagan, as we have explained, established an "affected employee" test that Mr. Borda could not meet. And Bayer established a test that Mr.

Duncan v. Jackson

243 F. App'x 890 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2007

If a violation can be made out, the next step is to determine whether the right was clearly established in a particularized sense, such that “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the … Qualified immunity is a question of law, which we review de novo. Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151, 1157 (6th Cir. 1996).

Lamarr Monson v. City of Detroit, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2024

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suit as long ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … This holding was not a direct ruling on Defendants’ motion for qualified immunity—it established a certain fact as supported by the evidence, rather than adjudicating whether Defendants violated clearly established law.

Local Union No. 186, United Packinghouse Food And Allied Workers, Afl-Cio, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Armour And Company

446 F.2d 610 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 17, 1971

The Continuous Service Date of an employee shall be: 4 '(a) In the case of employes hired hereafter, the employes presently on the payroll who have not as yet established seniority, the date on which the employe first establishes … In Mays Landing Water Power Co., 12 L.A. 861 (1949), the employer shut down before a date which, in contrast to the ambiguous January 1 date here, was clearly an eligibility date.

United States v. David Ferguson

681 F.3d 826 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 5, 2012

or non-qualifying aspect of the statute was violated. … Where a legal error has been committed, it will be considered “plain” if it is contrary to clearly established law at the time of appeal. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997); United States v.

Ernest Onderik v. Joe P. Morgan

886 F.2d 1316 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 1989

Because the defendants did not violate clearly established federal law or knowingly anticipate that their conduct would give rise to constitutional claims, defendants retain the protections of qualified immunity. 24 To minimize … To lose the protections of qualified immunity, the federal officials must have violated clearly established law. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985).

Vincent v. BRERWER CO.

514 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2007

The district court held that Vincent could not establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination because she could not show that she was as qualified for her position as her male replacement. … This quoted language does not clearly refer to the prima facie case, and even if it did so, the language was not necessary to the actual holdings in Suggs.

Lewter v. Kannensohn

159 F. App'x 641 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 29, 2005

On July 12, 2004, Kannensohn filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a dismissal of Lewter’s claims based on qualified immunity and failure to establish a constitutional violation. … Qualified Immunity Finally, Lewter argues that the district court erred in granting Kannensohn qualified immunity.

Mitchell Ex Rel. Mitchell v. McNeil

487 F.3d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2007

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), government officials sued in their individual capacities may be held liable under § 1983 when they violate constitutional rights that are “clearly established,” id. at 201. … In the absence of a cognizable claim, they have no right to any discovery—whether the claim arises in the context of qualified immunity (as here) or not. III.

Thomas Fox v. Saginaw Cnty., Mich.

67 F.4th 284 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 28, 2023

It rejected the Counties’ sovereign-immunity defense. Id. at *6–7. But it accepted the individual treasurers’ argument that qualified immunity protected them from liability, and it dismissed them from this suit. … So a plaintiff who lacks standing from the start cannot rely on factual changes during the suit to establish it. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 569 n.4.

Memphis A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Tre Hargett

2 F.4th 548 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2021

Although the record is sparse, the district court’s finding that Sweet was a member was not clearly erroneous. … Read faithfully, Cleveland Branch, N.A.A.C.P. establishes that even where a complaining party must show that a controversy could reasonably be expected to recur as to itself in order to establish that its case is justiciable

Lee E. WANGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.A. GRAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

872 F.2d 142 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 1989

There is a clearly enunciated rule in this circuit that age discrimination cases are to be decided on a “case by case basis.” … He must establish: (1) that he is a member of the protected age group; (2) that he is qualified for the rehire or recall position; (3) that he applied for the available position or can establish that the employer was otherwise

Marktray Spearman v. United States

186 F.3d 743 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 2, 1999

As a result of this procedure, the 1992 qualified Bay City wheel shall be composed of 166 Black qualified jurors and 3,786 White and Other qualified jurors. … The fact that Ovalle is the law of this circuit does not mean that it was correctly decided; it certainly does not mean that it is immune to criticism.

King v. Zamiara

150 F. App'x 485 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 7, 2005

Since there is sufficient evidence of a constitutional violation to survive summary judgment, whether the officials are entitled to qualified immunity depends on whether the violation was “clearly established.” … The officials argued in the district court that they were entitled to qualified immunity solely on the grounds that no constitutional violation occurred; they did not address the “clearly established” factor.