Case law

In Re United Trucking Service Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Debtor. United Trucking Service, Inc. v. Trailer Rental Company, Inc.

851 F.2d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 1988

. § 503 , establishes criteria for the allowance of administrative expenses: § 503. … We must decide whether the test established by Mammoth Mart and followed in White Motor Corp. is applicable to these facts.

Estate of Jonathan Manolios v. Macomb Cty.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2019

of the Manolioses’ clearly established constitutional rights—the requisite standard given the officers’ assertion of qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … But there is no such “clearly established” rule of constitutional law; thus, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. See Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012). Clear establishment is a high bar.

Mayflower Vehicle System, Inc. v. Chao

68 F. App'x 688 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2003

Mayflower next claims that even if a violation occurred, it does not qualify as a “serious violation.” … The regulations do not require that all of the provisions of the subsection be violated for any one of them to qualify as serious.

Patrice Nelson v. MillerKnoll, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2026

Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992) (“[Section] 43(a) protects qualifying unregistered trademarks and . . . the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part … “[E]xpert witnesses, though qualified in one area, may not testify beyond their specific expertise,” and it is unclear how Biagi would be qualified to offer admissible expert testimony on Novak’s state of mind and whether

Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA

538 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2008

debtor “validation rights can be triggered” under the FDCPA; (2) Defendants’ alleged mistake as to the written-dispute requirement was unintentional and resulted from a bona fide error; and (3) Defendants are absolutely immune … Jerman further argues that had Defendants established any meaningful procedures they would have either (1) sought a formal advisory opinion from the Federal Trade Commission on the “in writing” requirement, or (2) adopted

Gloria York v. George A. Biskup

92 F.3d 1186 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 1996

ORDER 1 The defendant appeals a district court order denying his motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity in this police brutality case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … right allegedly infringed was clearly established."

Hodge v. Haeberlin

579 F.3d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

The state-court determination— that Hodge suffered no prejudice and therefore could not establish ineffective assistance of counsel—is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. … The state-court's decision not to grant Hodge relief is entitled to deference, because it is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

John R. Abbruzzese v. Mitchell Hammond Michael Hatzo Westerville Police Department City of Westerville

958 F.2d 371 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 1992

The district court granted the detectives' motion for summary judgment, finding that the detectives were protected under qualified immunity because the detectives did not violate any of Abbruzzese's "clearly established" … statutory or constitutional rights, the officers are shielded by qualified immunity from liability for civil damages.

Joseph Gale v. Corrigan O'Donohue

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2020

But we find qualified 30 19-1503, Gale v. O’Donohue immunity appropriate here based on a lack of clearly established law. … clearly established and no Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on any of the search or seizure claims.”

Melchor-Reyes v. Lynch

645 F. App'x 381 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2016

Where “the applicant has not *385 established past persecution,” as here, “the applicant shall bear the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecutor is a government … But we directly addressed this alleged social group in previous decisions, holding that it does not qualify as a particular social group; new evidence will not alter this conclusion.

McCarthy v. Maitland Place, D.D.S.

313 F. App'x 810 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 2008

Place moved for summary judgment, asserting that he was entitled to qualified immunity, and filed an accompanying brief and affidavit in support of summary judgment. In his affidavit, Dr. … The district court, however, did not reach the question of qualified immunity. McCarthy now timely appeals. II.

Bobbie L. Sherrod v. General Motors Corporation

33 F.3d 636 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 1994

We affirm the order of the district court because 117 of the plaintiffs raise issues concerning collectively bargained plans that do not qualify as ERISA plans and the remaining plaintiff failed to allege a cause of action … The pension program is clearly regulated by ERISA.

Vaughn v. City of Lebanon

18 F. App'x 252 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2001

Presley was the only defendant that raised a claim of qualified immunity in a motion for summary judgment. … Given our affirmance of the district court on the excessive force claim against Presley, we need not go through the separate qualified immunity analysis set forth by the Supreme Court in Saucier v.

Feinthel v. Payne

121 F. App'x 60 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 2004

(emphases added).3 Summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was proper on the excessive force claim. … To defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) a genuine issue of fact as to whether a constitutional violation occurred; (2) that such a violation involved a clearly established constitutional right; and (3) a

United States v. Elmer Davis, Jr., United States of America v. Ralph Wynn, Jr.

459 F.2d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 1972

Concerning the Miranda warning, appellant suggests that he was not clearly apprised of the fact that he could terminate any questioning, even after the questioning had begun, and request *169 counsel at that time. … I have made this statement of my own free will and accord, without being threatened, injured, or intimidated and without having been promised any reward or immunity.” Signed “Elmer Davis.” 6 . Wong Sun v.

Sherman Pegross v. Oakland County Treasurer

592 F. App'x 380 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 2014

The next day, Pegross filed a motion for an emergency hearing, clearly panicked by looming tax foreclosure sales that had been scheduled for August 20 and 21. (R. 16.) … Third, the County Treasurer was entitled to qualified immunity because Pegross failed to allege that he had taken any action outside the scope of his authority in an unconstitutional manner. (Id. at 25.)

Galyon v. Alexander

815 F.2d 703 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 1987

City of Cleveland, 797 F.2d 297, 305-6 (6th Cir. 1986). 10 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … official would be violating a "clearly established" federal right by merely following the dictates of the state legislature.

Great Lakes Exploration Group, LLC v. Unidentified Wrecked & (For Salvage-Right Purposes) Abandoned Sailing Vessel

522 F.3d 682 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 2008

In an in rem admiralty action, the arrest of a shipwreck is the procedure by which a salvor establishes jurisdiction in federal court. … Fed. 421 § 2b (2000) (noting that no court “has analyzed what is required to establish that wreckage is ‘embedded.’

Association Of American Physicians And Surgeons, Inc. v. Otis Bowen

909 F.2d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 19, 1990

II 17 Subsection (C) clearly establishes a restriction on the method by which health providers may bill for clinical diagnostic testing. … Were the statute to exclude the qualifying phrase and state simply that "payment for a clinical diagnostic laboratory test (not performed by a rural health clinic) must be made on an assignment-related basis," it would clearly

Island Creek Coal Co. v. Melyndia Bryan

937 F.3d 738 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 2019

Courts would retain an inherent authority to adopt exhaustion rules so long as a statute does not clearly say otherwise. Cf. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631–32 (1962). … Qualifying?