Case law

Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v. Hotels.com, L.P.

590 F.3d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 2009

In denying the motion, the district court reasoned that LJCMG’s allegation that the OTCs leased rooms at a marked-up retail price was sufficient at the pleading stage to qualify the companies as “like or similar accommodations … in another jurisdiction which handled all of its reservations and booking, and be completely immune from municipal accommodations taxes”), holding limited by Pitt County, 553 F.3d at 313 ; City of Fairview Heights v.

Layman v. Alloway Stamping & Machine Co.

98 F. App'x 369 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 31, 2004

Counsel’s construction does not even qualify as effective legerdemain. … Because the district court relied upon clearly established Sixth Circuit precedent, the jury instructions do not constitute plain error. Beginning in Maddox v.

Guldager v. United States

204 F.2d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 25, 1953

Under established rules, they became part of the contract. … No other- form of registration establishing co-ownership is authorized.”

Cunningham v. Stegall

13 F. App'x 286 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 11, 2001

Elaborating on the meaning of this statutory language, the Supreme Court held that a decision of a state court is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that … However, a federal court, on habeas review, may not find a state decision to be “unreasonable” “simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established

Eddie Hopson v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation

306 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2002

Title VII The analytical framework governing Title VII cases in the absence of direct evidence of discrimination is well-established. … Express Corp., 266 F.3d 401, 406 (6th Cir.2001) (stating that to establish a prima facie case, a Title VII plaintiff must show: (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he was qualified for the job; (3) that

Hermann v. Cook

114 F. App'x 162 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 22, 2004

established right such that the officers would not be entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does ‘not violate clearly established statutory

Malgorzata Krawczyk v. Township of Hagar

673 F. App'x 508 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2016

But the burden to prove immunity is theirs, including the burden of establishing the requisite facts and law that proves their point. … Township of Hagar cause of the injury, the defendant generally cannot invoke Michigan qualified immunity before at least some fact-finding.

Ratliff v. Wellington Exempted Village Schools Board of Education

820 F.2d 792 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 1987

City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), that a municipality is not immune from damages simply because its officials acted in good faith. … General Motors establishes simply that the new rale announced and applied in DelCostello v.

Hartsel v. Keys

87 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and creates a presumption of discrimination by showing: (1) membership in the protected class; (2) that she … Furthermore, a civil servant is not allowed to immunize herself from being fired or denied a promotion by supporting an unpopular cause or losing candidate.

Newark Gardens, Inc. v. Michigan Potato Industry Commission

847 F.2d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 16, 1988

Essentially, plaintiff argues that the Commission qualifies as a “handler” under 7 U.S.C. § 2302 (a)(3) and therefore is subject to the prohibitions of the AFPA. … The associations were thus clearly performing “marketing” functions within the plain meaning of the term.

City of Cleveland v. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company

734 F.2d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 24, 1984

At the same time, however, the Court qualified this immunity by providing that such attempts would be actionable under the antitrust laws where they are a “mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt … Cleveland Electric clearly had neither monopoly power in this market nor a dangerous probability of acquiring such a monopoly.

McGraw v. Madison Township

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.

Donald Harris v. Clarice Stovall

212 F.3d 940 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2000

The Williams Court stated that “[w]hatever would qualify as an ‘old rule’ under Teague mil constitute ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by [this] Court.’ ” Williams, — U.S. at -, 120 S.Ct. at 1499 (citation … Court precedent on the rule sought by petitioner was not clearly established.

Robert L. McLaurin v. Josef E. Fischer, and University of Cincinnati

768 F.2d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 1985

McLaurin established his prima facie case; that is, he was a member of the protected class, he was removed as director, he was qualified for the position, and he was replaced by a younger person. E.g., LaGrant v. … Clearly, the district court was well within its discretion in requiring plaintiff to show cause before introducing additional testimony. Accordingly, we reject Dr.

Johnson v. Stasewish

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2004

The dismissal was based not on sovereign immunity Cir. 1986). … Dep’t of State Police, 491 U .S. 58 , 71 n.10 (1 989 ), or by suing the defendants in their individual, rather than official, ca pacities (subject, of course, to qualified immunity defenses), see Rodgers v.

Tracy Lee Neice v. Homer Sawyer

65 F.3d 169 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 1995

Judge Sawyer appeals the denial of his qualified immunity defense. For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the District Court denying Judge Sawyer's defense of qualified immunity is affirmed. … IV. 17 Judge Sawyer also appeals the denial of summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense.

Ardella Patterson v. Chrysler Group

845 F.3d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 11, 2017

Such a system defeats the clearly understood policy goals of statutes of limitations. See Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Ry. … DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 419 (2005) (“Under long- established principles, [a plaintiff’s] lack of diligence precludes equity’s operation.”); McQuiddy v.

Smith v. Parker

7 F. App'x 432 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 22, 2001

Clearly, pursuant to KSP regulations, Smith’s prohibited correspondence would have been rejected whether the mailroom clerks knew of Smith’s legal actions or not. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment … As Smith’s claims are without merit, a qualified immunity inquiry is unnecessary.

Jacqueline Gaines v. Denise Cross

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 27, 2026

The other mailer explicitly calls for voters to question whether Petrella, as “someone without children of her own” is qualified to “interview [voters’] children and decide their custody and visitation arrangements.” … In short, Gaines’s advertisements “clearly relate[] to [DR-Court] policies and . . . fit[] easily within the scope of the exception.” See Rose, 291 F.3d at 925.

Tedric Leighton Beverly v. John Gluch Mr. Garbow Mary Sauvey, Dr. Mr. Church Mr. McKutchen Carlos Doe Mark Doe George Doe Kay Barath Marshawn Doe

902 F.2d 1568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 23, 1990

immunity. … That argument, rather than qualified immunity, became the basis for the appellees' summary judgment.