Case law

United States v. Ramone Anderson

695 F.3d 390 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 13, 2012

This statement, contained in a footnote, is clearly dicta and therefore not binding upon subsequent panels. See Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789, 811 (6th Cir.2006). In any case, McMurray’s dicta is unworkable. … does not readily qualify as a violent felony.

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Storer Communications, Inc.

810 F.2d 580 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 6, 1987

Clearly, Stone does not belong to a suspect class. See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 28 , 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1293 , 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). … Generally, in habeas cases the constitutional right is clearly established, and the only question is whether the person in custody falls within the protection of the defined right. Such is not the case here.

Austin Roy Clark v. Neeli Bendapudi

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2023

In their motions, they raised the affirmative defenses of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, argued that the claims against Defendants Koch, Crump, Rao, and Neely were barred by the one-year statute of limitations … For a qualified immunity analysis, we consider two issues: whether a constitutional violation occurred and, if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. Pearson v.

Lennox Emanuel v. Wayne County, MI

652 F. App'x 417 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 20, 2016

Qualified immunity is available to government officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Because such a conclusion was reasonable under the circumstances, qualified immunity would have been appropriate.

John Sawyer v. City of Soddy Daisy, Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2023

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, concluding they were entitled to qualified immunity (and immunity under Tennessee law) because Officer Jenkins acted reasonably when he shot Jack, … the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.”

Village of Oakwood v. State Bank and Trust Company

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2008

Section 1821(d) clearly establishes a process for the administrative review of “any claim against a depository institution for which the Corporation is receiver.” 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(6)(A)(i). … Ultimately, the Uninsured Depositors failed to comply with the clearly delineated procedure for seeking review of their claims arising out of the collapse of Oakwood.

Patricia Siders v. City of Eastpointe

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 24, 2020

The officer claimed qualified immunity, meaning that he is immune from suit if his actions did not violate the suspect’s constitutional rights, or if those rights were not clearly established, or if his decisions, even … To deny qualified immunity here would be to hold that a suspected domestic-violence perpetrator has a clearly established constitutional right to thwart the responding officer by getting into a car and closing the door,

United States v. Vanhook

640 F.3d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 2011

court may additionally consider the “charging document, written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented” to see if they “necessarily” establish … Such crimes, because they imposed liability on the defendant regardless of the intent he or she possessed at the time of the crime, were clearly different from the crimes Congress listed in the ACCA, each of which involved

Taylor v. Mueller Co.

660 F.2d 1116 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 5, 1981

The defendants argue that the district court’s findings that employees in different departments perform generally different duties is not clearly erroneous. … The Court concluded, however, that Congress intended to extend “a measure of immunity” to seniority systems which had this “freezing effect.” Id. at 350 , 97 S.Ct. at 1862 .

Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company

202 F.3d 897 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2000

Matthew clearly falls under the designation of Dependent as contemplated in Great-West’s integration of benefits clause. He is 20 years old, not married, and chiefly dependent on his parents for support. … Based on Allstate’s own definition, Matthew does not qualify as a “Dependent” under the Allstate policy.

Hunt v. Reynolds

2 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 1993

However, the district court found the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages. … In light of the case law from this circuit at the time the alleged constitutional violations occurred, the defendants did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of Hunt. See Anderson v.

Eddleman v. McKee

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2006

When a state court addresses a harmless-error claim on direct review, the clearly established federal law that it must apply is the Chapman standard. … Fulminante represents the best available explication of the “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” relevant to Eddleman’s claim.

United States v. Search of Music City Marketing, Inc.

212 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2000

qualified as drug paraphernalia. 511 U.S. at 526 , 114 S.Ct. at 1754-55 . … In the case at bar we are confronted with a defendant who dealt in a number of items that clearly qualified as drug paraphernalia.

Moody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board

847 F.3d 399 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2017

Furthermore, there is no case law establishing that a failure to timely amend or file a claim is a hindrance. … In fact, Moody clearly said that it was his father’s protected First Amendment actions that formed the foundation of the retaliation claim, and Moody was seeking to use third-party standing to assert that claim.

Charlotte Juide v. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, Robert Lane, and Tony P. Williams, and A. George Best, Ii, and Stephen J. Markman

107 F.3d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 1997

immunity is raised as a defense and because the right that the plaintiff claimed the defendants violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … The court later held that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Steven D. Brawner

173 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 2, 1999

First, it is undisputed that Roberts was qualified as an expert in telemarketing fraud. … Brawner contends that the sentencing court clearly erred by imposing a two-level increase pursuant to section 3Al.l(b) of the sentencing guidelines.

Storer Communications, Inc v. Presser

828 F.2d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 1987

There is no Giglio issue in this case. 23 The district court clearly erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to rule on Storer's motion. … A motion had been filed to disclose material filed under seal; clearly, the district court had jurisdiction and it should have been exercised.

Beck v. Haik

377 F.3d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 2004

Steinman) lacked the medical training to qualify him to render such a judgment. … The district court granted him (and the other individual defendant, Chief Hornkohl) summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Kenneth Moran v. Timothy Rogers

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 2019

Appellate review of qualified immunity decisions is a prime example. … The district court also concluded a three-and-a-half-hour delay, if shown, could support a finding that Parks violated Moran’s clearly established Eighth Amendment rights.

Environmental Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley Authority

468 F.2d 1164 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 13, 1972

This bill provided that the Secretary of Interior could conduct studies on environmental matters, and it established a Council on Environmental Quality. … It will be observed that the only language in section 102 that could conceivably be read as qualifying the specific directives contained therein is the phrase “to the fullest extent possible.”