Case law

Freddie Gregory v. Phillip Burnett

577 F. App'x 512 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 2014

a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established. … Ct. at 2093, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of qualified immunity on the basis that “at the time of [the plaintiff’s] arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could violate

Fairport International Exploration, Inc. v. the Shipwrecked Vessel

177 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 1999

Burden of Proof 45 The district court in Fairport I required only that Michigan establish a colorable claim to the shipwreck. … The district courts rejected the admiralty standard only because they applied a burden of proof appropriate for assertions of sovereign immunity.

Dereck Dawson v. United States

702 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 2012

. § 924(e), because he did not have the requisite three qualifying prior convictions. … Despite the fact that the crime can be achieved through fraud, the offense clearly falls within the ACCA’s residual clause as a crime that presents a serious No. 11-5021 Dawson v.

United States v. Wood

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 17, 2000

Wood 3 robbery, however, the offense still clearly meets Wilson’s convictions for crimes of violence. The probation officer second criteria. … adopted the probation officer’s establish that the offense involves the “use, attempted use, or recommendation, finding that Wood had two prior threatened use of physical force” may the court then look at convictions

Mallory v. Noble Correctional Institute

45 F. App'x 463 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2002

After considering the parties’ summary judgment briefing, the district court disposed of much of Mallory’s case on grounds that Mallory does not now dispute: Eleventh Amendment immunity; issue preclusion based on the SBPR … To establish a prima facie case for race discrimination in employment a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) he or she is a member of the protected class; (2) he or she is qualified for his or her job; (3) he or she

Michael Meyer v. City of Cincinnati

943 F.2d 52 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 1991

B. 8 Plaintiff's remaining claim for malicious prosecution against Leugers was dismissed on the grounds of "qualified immunity," since probable cause for plaintiff's arrest existed under Ohio law, which provides: 9 (A) No … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (Law enforcement officials are entitled to qualified immunity in the performance of their official functions). 15 We agree with the district court that a police officer in Leugers' position

United States v. William Edward Hobbs

403 F.2d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 1968

That burden has now shifted, and the proponent of a proffered photograph has established a prima facie case for its admissibility when he has shown it to be an accurate representation of the scene in question. 3 Wigmore on … Even where an occasional qualified witness may be available to testify as to such details su^h testimony would obviously be irrelevant and immaterial.

Akins v. Easterling

648 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 5, 2011

Easterling Page 11 conviction became final, and therefore does not qualify as “clearly established Federal law” under § 2254(d). See Thaler v. … Peraza, 25 F.3d 1051, 1994 4 The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide whether the temporal cutoff for whether a Supreme Court decision qualifies as “clearly established Federal law” under §

Omar Batson v. Genesee Cty. Sheriff's Deputy Hoover

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 11, 2019

Generally, we analyze qualified immunity in two steps: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Similarly, in Binay, summary judgment was denied for qualified immunity when the defendant officers had concealed their identities.

John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. James M. Pennington, Crossplaintiffs-Appellants v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. James M. Pennington, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. Harry P. Stansberry, Individually and T/a Stansberry Coal Company, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. Jesse C. Fesler and Nola Fesler, Individually and T/a Fesler Coal Company, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Corss John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. U. R. Arnold and Mrs. U. R. Arnold, Individually and T/a Arnold Strip Mining Company, a Partnership, and the Arnold Coal Company, Inc., Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross Defendant- John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. Tennco, Incorporated, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. E. C. McPherson Individually and T/a E. C. McPherson Coal Company, M. W. Norquest and E. C. McPherson Individually and T/a McPherson Coal Company, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross Dean Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America, W. R. Parton D/B/A W. R. Parton Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America

400 F.2d 806 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 1968

The Court concluded that the combination of businessmen violated the Sherman Act unless it was immunized by participation by the union. … This clearly would be an impermissible ground upon which to tax the Union all the costs in these cases.

United States v. Dennis Essington Green, United States of America v. Daniel S. Frano

548 F.2d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 11, 1977

Sargent-Welch had an established policy of never selling chemicals to individuals. … Simmons was elaborately qualified as an expert by experience in the undercover, illicit purchase of controlled substances.

Brown v. Earthboard Sports

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 16, 2007

Brown claims that an offering must actually meet the conditions established by the SEC regulation in order to qualify as a “covered security” exempted from state registration requirements by NSMIA. … Therefore, we hold that NSMIA preempts state securities registration 4 “It is clearly within Congress’ powers to establish an exclusive federal forum to adjudicate issues of federal law in a particular

Joseph E. Senk v. Village of Northfield

961 F.2d 1578 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 1992

If the Senks' version of the facts is correct, however, the officers who are accused of using excessive force would clearly not be entitled to qualified immunity. … Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is therefore inappropriate.

Terry D. Walton v. Ford Motor Company Visteon Corporation, Jointly and Severally

424 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 28, 2005

Under the facts of this case, Walton cannot carry his burden of establishing that he imparted sufficient notice to Vis-teon to apprise it of his need to take leave for an FMLA-qualifying injury. … Clearly then, Walton never informed his employer of the reason for his absence until after his employment had already been terminated.

United States v. Jimenez

605 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2010

imposed, not to establish the nature of the convictions or the specific offense conduct. … Yet, the court’s concern was clearly motivated by defendant’s acknowledged “serious health problems and serious mental health issues.” Sent. tr. at 32-33.

United States v. Virginia Hurst (90-6235) Sam T. Burnett (90-6448) and Eddie E. Shutt (90-6254)

951 F.2d 1490 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 13, 1991

Equally clear is the evidence that defendants violated these qualifying and operational conditions. … You clearly understand that. This testimony solely and only goes to the issue of his truthfulness or untruthfulness, that is his question of credibility. You clearly understand that. *1501 ?

William J. O'Hara III v. John T. Wigginton Wayne Dunn Al C. Parke and Fred Cowan

24 F.3d 823 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 1994

Accordingly, states and their officials are immune from such suits in federal court, absent the state’s unequivocal consent. Id. at 99-101 , 104 S.Ct. at 907-08 . … In reviewing a habeas proceeding, factual findings by the district court are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review. Warner v.

Inner City Contracting LLC v. Charter Twp. of Northville

87 F.4th 743 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2023

The general rule, first established by the Supreme Court in Perkins v. … June 1, 2023) (holding that, for purposes of qualified immunity, there was no clearly established law in that circuit determining that officials are liable under § 1981 for discriminating against a corporation).

42 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1090, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,905 Annie L. Freeman v. Michigan, Department of State, Department of Civil Service, Richard H. Austin, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity Only, Frank Sierawski, in His Official Capacity Only, Jointly and Severally

808 F.2d 1174 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 1987

Whereas Congress amended Title VII in 1972 specifically to establish state liability for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e(a), (f); Fitzpatrick v. … However, a state may waive its immunity and consent to being sued in federal court.

Bell v. Bell

512 F.3d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 4, 2008

And lest anyone think that a panel’s “getting it wrong” qualifies as a matter of exceptional public importance, our Rule notes that “[alleged errors ... in the facts of the case (including sufficient evidence), or errors … Instead, the parties disputed whether Bell’s evidence established such an agreement.