Case law

Timothy Castorina, by and Through His Parent and Guardian, Patsy Rewt, Tiffany Dargavell, by and Through Her Parents and Guardians, Greg and Sandra Dargavell v. Madison County School Board Shannon Johnson William Fultz Shannon Johnson, as Superintendent of the Madison County School District William Fultz, as Principal of Madison Central High School

246 F.3d 536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 8, 2001

Third, Castorina and Dargavell were clearly making a personal statement in deciding to wear the Hank Williams, Jr. … After acknowledging that the question of school uniforms did not fit exactly within the three categories established by Tinker v.

Harold Wolfe v. Esco Jarnigan

357 F. App'x 621 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 2009

To overcome a qualified-immunity defense, a claimant must show (1) that the defendant violated a “constitutional right” and (2) that the right “was clearly established” at the time. Pearson v. … R.25 at 9–10; see also R.10 at 3, 6 (treating § 38-8-106-based dismissal and qualified immunity as distinct grounds for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal).

Wright-Bernet v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

172 F.2d 343 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 1949

The -salaries for which the deducti.on was claimed were established by resolution of the board of directors -in 1942, and are still in effect. … . * * * “The effect of Rule 52(a) was to establish a uniform standard for testing the validity of findings of fact in any case tried without a jury.

Swift v. Kortrecht

112 F. 709 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 7, 1902

Besides, it clearly appears that, though-absolute in form, the deed of March 30th was really only upon a special trust to enable him to qualify as surety in the injunction bonds. … W. 301 ,— clearly show that in such circumstances Kortrecht and wife are entitled under the statute of the state to claim a homestead interest in the land, or, if the land must be sold, in the proceeds of the sale. 5.

Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, Ohio

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2020

Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Clearly Established Law We turn to the second inquiry of the qualified immunity analysis: whether “the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Campbell v.

Willena Ross v. John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

365 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 1966

medical expert, has reached conclusions both with regard to the medical significance of a normal electroencephalographic report and the plaintiff’s alleged symptoms, which no one but a qualified medical expert would be qualified … In addition, the Hearing Examiner committed error when, in his decision, he held: “The Social Security Act, as amended, clearly requires that the physical or mental impairment which results in claimant’s alleged inability

North American Natural Resources, Inc. v. Strand

252 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 5, 2001

In seeking to establish the existence of a case or controversy, the QFs rely heavily on the Third Circuit’s opinion in Freehold Cogeneration Assoc., L.P. v. … In the instant case, the *815 MPSC has disavowed any intent to interfere in the contractual relationships established under PURPA.

General Motors Corporation v. David J. Buha and James B. Stone, County District Judge

623 F.2d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 1980

They point out that Congress has clearly prohibited garnishments and attachments when that is its intention. … Nevertheless, Congress did use the word “voluntary” in specifying those assignments which qualify for the 10 per cent exception in § 1056(dX2).

Teen Ranch, Inc., Matthew Koch, and Mitchell Koster v. Marianne Udow, Musette Michael, and Debora Buchanan

479 F.3d 403 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2007

The district court’s opinion was sound, as it clearly articulated and provided the reasoning for rejecting Teen Ranch’s constitutional claims. … is not available to enforce a violation of a federal statute ‘where Congress has foreclosed such enforcement of the statute in the enactment itself and where the statute did not create enforceable rights, privileges, or immunities

Joey L. Mitchell v. Glenn Chapman

343 F.3d 811 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 23, 2003

It further is well-established that conditions precedent are similar to statutes of limitations. See Truitt v. … immunity, to determine whether the defendant had actual knowledge of the potential for individual liability.”

Warner v. Greenebaum, Doll & Mcdonald

104 F. App'x 493 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 2004

Section 1985(1), however, prohibits interference with officers in the performance of their duties and is clearly not relevant in this case. … The record fails to establish that the defendants’ purpose in serving the subpoenas was to hinder “the course of justice” in Kentucky.

Jarriett v. Wilson

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for actions taken within their official discretion insofar as these actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.”

Guennadi Y. Mikhailevitch v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

146 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 8, 1998

Specifically, Mikhailevitch maintains that the IJ was “clearly biased” against him because she “often interrupted proceedings and seemed more concerned with expediting the hearing instead of allowing ... … An applicant for asylum bears the burden of establishing that he or she qualifies as a refugee “either because he has suffered actual past persecution or because he has a well-founded fear of future persecution.” 8 C.F.R.

Dennis L. Martin v. Barnesville Exempted Village School District Board of Education

209 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 2000

To establish a prima facie case under the Americans with Disabilities Act, plaintiff must show: (1) he was “disabled” under the ADA; (2) he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job; (3) he suffered … employer may hold an alcoholic employee to the same performance and behavior standards to which the employer holds other employees “even if any unsatisfactory performance is related to the alcoholism of such employee,” thereby clearly

Leigh Cline v. Catholic Diocese of Toledo Catholic Diocesan School of Toledo St. Paul Elementary School Herbert J. Willman, Administrator St. Paul Elementary School

206 F.3d 651 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 14, 2000

Such a claim requires that the plaintiff first establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by showing that 1) she was pregnant, 2) she was qualified for her job, 3) she was subjected to an adverse employment decision … Clearly, St. Paul argues, such a driver should automatically lose under the "legitimate expectations" prong of the prima facie case.

Gordon v. Barnes Pumps, Inc.

999 F.2d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 1993

Accordingly, the appellants clearly do not have a claim under .the Pullman Plan. … If the oral policy does not qualify as a plan, then the statements are no more than oral representations.

Kris Kinsey v. State of Ohio

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2020

This claim is not merely doubtful, nor merely even implausible; it is clearly preposterous. … immunity; he failed to state viable ADA or state-law claims and the defendants were entitled to state-law immunity; and Lorain County is not a political entity and, therefore, not a proper defendant.

Schroder v. City Of Fort Thomas

412 F.3d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2005

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), government officials sued in their individual capacities may be held liable under § 1983 only when they violate federally protected rights that are "clearly established … We need not address the municipal-policy and qualified-immunity issues in this case, however, because both theories share an initial premise—the violation of a federally protected right—that has not been satisfied.

Tony Gunter v. Bemis Co.,Inc.

906 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 2018

And Bemis acknowledged that it would reinstate Gunter if the jury found him qualified for his position. … It establishes—or fails to establish—our authority to decide a case, triggering an unflagging duty to make sure we have it. Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 17 (2018).

Carl M. Hill v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health Education and Welfare

592 F.2d 341 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 1979

Both efforts failed to qualify appellant under the standards in 20 C.F.R. § 410.490 (b)(l)(ii). Dr. … Appellant did not qualify under either the 1971 or the 1974 ventilatory test.