Case law

Anastasia S. Christopher, Cross-Appellant v. Stouder Memorial Hospital, Cross-Appellee

936 F.2d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 24, 1991

While the court dismissed all of Christopher’s other claims at the close of plaintiffs case, he found that she had established her claim of retaliation. … Therefore we find that the trial court’s determination that Stouder acted with a retaliatory motive is not clearly erroneous. IV.

E. W. v. Detroit Pub. Sch. Dist.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2022

Both Montgomery and Wilkins appeal the denial of qualified immunity. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” City of Tahlequah v.

Hubert and Kathy Schropshire v. Eric Smith and Jeff Bothwell, Hubert and Kathy Schropshire v. City of Englewood, Englewood City Council, and Mayor Edward Kemper

50 F.3d 10 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 20, 1995

Defendants appear to argue that because the Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that anything done by Smith and Bothwell violated clearly established rights, as would be necessary to show that Smith and Bothwell were … not entitled to qualified immunity, that Defendants Smith and Bothwell are entitled to attorney fees.

D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Toledo

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2005

establishments in the exercise of their “home rule” authority. … . § 3791.031(A)(3), the legislature indicated not that these establishments were immune to smoking-related regulation, but that they simply did not fall within the ambit of the statute.

Pension Benefit Guaranty, Corporation v. East Dayton Tool and Die Company

14 F.3d 1122 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 9, 1994

In 1959, East Dayton, an Ohio corporation that designed, manufactured and sold tools and dies, established the East Dayton Tool & Die Restated Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees (the “Plan”) which qualified for coverage … This court stated the conclusion in Challenge Stamping did not invalidate the 80% control test or establish a per se rule for all bankruptcies. Id.

United States v. Jerry F. Arnold

58 F.3d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 13, 1995

The government responded that because force was one possible means of establishing assault with intent to commit sexual battery, the offense qualified as a crime of violence. … The possible circumstances establishing the offense are clearly listed in the disjunctive, demonstrating that force may, but need not, be involved in an assault with intent to commit sexual battery under Tennessee law.

United States v. Young

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 2005

As for the propensities of death-qualified jurors, the district court was troubled by research showing that 49.2% of capital-qualified jurors make the sentencing decision before the penalty phase. … The plain language clearly demands conclusion of the guilt phase prior to application of § 3593(b)(1) - (3).

Steven Ryan v. Aurora City Board of Education

540 F.2d 222 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 2, 1976

The determination as to whether the quality of services of a particular teacher entitles him to continued employment beyond the probationary period, thereby qualifying him for tenure status, or whether his contract of employment … We reverse on the ground that the record shows no deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities of appellees secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States so as to support an action under § 1983; and that

Akrawi v. Booker

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2009

This scope of Brady’s requirements was clearly established when the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in December 2003. … Inasmuch as Harris stands for the proposition that Brady’s application to tacit agreements was clearly established in 2001, it must be deemed clearly established in 2003 as well. See Smith v.

Estate of Billy Collins, Jr. v. Stephen Wilburn

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 15, 2018

After a defense of qualified immunity is raised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendants violated a right that was so clearly established “that every ‘reasonable official would have understood … issue “clearly established” at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Fred Kyle v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

819 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 1987

That regulation establishes medical standards similar to those in Section 410.490, but it also includes an additional requirement that the miner have ten years of coal mine employment before he can qualify for the presumption … Obviously, Congress did not qualify its use of the term “criteria” in one subsection, but did in another.

Terri L. Hamad v. Woodcrest Condominium Association

328 F.3d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 2003

immunity and therefore had not yet had an opportunity to consider whether material facts were in dispute). … We believe that the record clearly refutes these rulings by the district court.

John Wysong v. City of Heath

377 F. App'x 466 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 13, 2010

immunity. … may be asserted to establish nonliability: (6) . . . the employee is immune from liability unless one of the following applies: -9- No. 08-3319 Wysong v.

Edward R. Butler v. Richard P. Seiter

927 F.2d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 7, 1991

We find no merit to either contention. 5 Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages, as long as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Adoption of such a strict standard would tend to convert qualified immunity into absolute immunity.

Samad v. Leegan

946 F.2d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 1991

immunity because the due process rights Samad was denied were not clearly established at the time of his disciplinary hearing. … legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken."

Gary L. Penick v. Columbus Board of Education, and the Ohio State Board of Education

583 F.2d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 14, 1978

The State of Ohio provides financial assistance through the School Foundation Program to all qualifying, chartered districts in the state. … The Board disburses substantial federal funds to districts which qualify under different federal programs.

Angelina Miguel v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

359 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 2004

On August 10, 2001, the day of the next hearing, Miguel’s counsel stated that Miguel did not qualify for any form of relief. … States pursuant to a prior admission, [or that] she is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted to the United States and is not inadmissible as charged.” 8 C.F.R. § 240.8 (c) (2000).

United States v. Juan Balderas Garcia, Jr.

72 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 1995

Further, the clearly erroneous standard applies to a district court's "application of Sec. 3C1.1," and the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the district court's factual findings at sentencing., Id. … He testified at the trial in this case under a grant of use immunity

Kreis v. Charles Townley

833 F.2d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 6, 1987

Kreis and Ernst when it sent to them letters of termination is not clearly erroneous. … Kreis, Ernst and Shier experienced logistical difficulties in establishing their new practice, Dr.

United States v. Jamael White

58 F.4th 889 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2023

To prevail under the plain-error standard, a defendant must establish “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. … sense that the court was willing to hold the defendant criminally liable for indicating possession of a weapon based only on the way he held his hands and the impression he conveyed to the victim, circumstances that could clearly