Case law

Whittington v. Milby

928 F.2d 188 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 1991

However, even a strong belief in one's own case is insufficient to overcome the well-established bar to actions filed outside the limitations period. … It is well settled that "Congress [did not] intend[ ] by the general language of Sec. 1983 to override the traditional sovereign immunity of the States." Quern v.

21 Employee Benefits Cas. 1341, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23937j Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Julie A. Marsh, Dana Lyn Weaver and James R. Marsh, III

119 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 15, 1997

Section 1144(b)(7) provides that 23 Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to qualified domestic relations orders (within the meaning of section 1056(d)(3)(B)(i) of this title), qualified medical child support orders … dependent of a participant, and 33 (II) is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law (including a community property law). 34 (C) A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this subparagraph only if such order clearly

Charlie Lilly v. City of Erlanger

598 F. App'x 370 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 23, 2015

officers’ position, would not know he was violating Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.” … that constitutional right was clearly established such that a ‘reasonable official would -13- No. 14-5069 Lilly v.

Cecil Koger v. Gary Mohr

964 F.3d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2020

Therefore, ODRC is not entitled to summary judgment on Koger’s First Amendment claim regarding his religious diet.6 6We note that Appellees sought qualified immunity only with respect to Koger’s forced-locks-cutting … claims, and asserted no qualified-immunity defense to his religious-diet claims.

William Burgess v. Chuck Bowers

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2019

their actions violate clearly established rights.” … Having concluded that William failed to show that Ballard violated clearly established law, the court should have granted him qualified immunity. See Thompson, 831 F.3d at 369.

Giotto Germany v. Derek Watkins

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

Specifically, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.”

Shaun Burgett v. Kenneth Wilber

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2019

Once a government official claims he is entitled to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that he is not entitled to qualified immunity by establishing “that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right … ” and “that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Foulks v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

713 F.2d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 1983

Amendment immunity. … In this case, the record clearly reflects that DeForge subjected the plaintiff to dissimilar treatment.

Terri Conner v. Southfield Police Department

348 F. App'x 122 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 2009

Detective Michael Pieroni appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment on his claim for qualified immunity. … Because there was no constitutional violation, we need not address whether the constitutional right was clearly established, the other step of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 818.

Citizens Insurance Company of America v. Midmichigan Health Connectcare Network Plan

449 F.3d 688 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2006

MidMichigan is a self-funded employee health and welfare benefit plan, established pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. … Under this rule, “accident or disability” would be considered a qualifier for the other adjectives, all qualifying the noun “plan”.

M. Lee Gallenstein v. United States

975 F.2d 286 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 16, 1992

In the legislative history, Congress stated explicitly that the 1981 amendment was intended to establish an easily administered rule that would eliminate the tracing requirement for surviving spouses. … provisions in the two acts are in irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one; and (2) If the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly

Dr. Raj P. Soni v. Board of Trustees of the University of Tennessee

513 F.2d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 1975

For example, in the Walstad and Scott cases, supra, the state constitutions apparently contained provisions specifically extending state immunities to the universities. … We are not unmindful that a waiver of a constitutional right must appear clearly and may not be lightly inferred. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 (1974).

Larry Sevenski v. Brock Artfitch

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2022

Clearly Established “A right is clearly established if ‘[t]he contours of that right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” … The Alleged Constitutional Violation was not Clearly Established Even if Artfitch used excessive force, that violation was far from clearly established under our cases, so he is entitled to qualified immunity on

Leonard Schultz v. Newsweek, Inc. And the Evening News Association

668 F.2d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 1982

While noting that the standard of malice to be applied to the Michigan qualified privilege is not totally clear, the district court concluded that “under Michigan’s common law plaintiff must establish a disputed issue of … This is because the court failed to establish the “scope” of the privilege.

Darrell D. Thurman v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., Cross-Appellee

90 F.3d 1160 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 26, 1996

The clearly erroneous standard requires this court to give deference to the finder of fact. … Once a plaintiff has met his burden of production and has established a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to establish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment

Royal Oak Drain Dist., Oakland County, Mich. v. Keefe

87 F.2d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 1937

First it is urged that the proceedings were irregular, in that the documents filed therein did not describe with sufficient particularity some of the affected land, and were not signed by a sufficient number of qualified … While this statute was nonexistent at the time contractual rights were created by the issue and sale of bonds, and while it created no contractual rights constitutionally immune from impairment by the Legislature, it imposed

United States v. Pembrook

609 F.3d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 11, 2010

The court observed that “if the defendant were not qualified as a Career Criminal, which he is, he would be looking at 188 to 235 months of incarceration.” … A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, applies the law improperly, or uses an erroneous legal standard. Ibid.

League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Brunner

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 26, 2008

: This court remains confident its December 2nd Order follows naturally from established precedent. . . . … Further, [t]he dispute in this case involves fundamental issues of paramount importance as to which there is no controlling precedent clearly or directly on point, and as to which substantial disagreement

Stephen A. Ale v. Tennessee Valley Authority

269 F.3d 680 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2001

They did not qualify for the executive exemption because their “primary duty” was not the “management” of the plant. 4. … In Burger King, the First Circuit considered whether Burger King assistant managers qualified for the executive exemption. Id. at 223 .

Paul Fisher v. Betsy Gordon

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2019

Clearly Established Right? … Because no case clearly established that relying on the Fishers’ actions (and inaction) as evidence of consent was unlawful, the OCDJFS Employees are entitled to qualified immunity. See Arrington-Bey v.