Case law

Azim Abdullah v. Lt. Kinnison

769 F.2d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 30, 1985

Prisoners clearly continue to enjoy certain First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, including the right of religious freedom, even while incarcerated. Cruz v. … Finally, appellees have argued that the motion for summary judgment in their favor below may also be upheld on the grounds that they were entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Corporation Benjamin Baum Phyllis Ball Walter Bergman John Charles Bearden Gilbert R. Davis, and James T. Weaver v. City of Grand Rapids, a Municipal Corporation v. Chabad House of Western Michigan, a Corporation, Intervenor-Appellant

922 F.2d 303 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 13, 1990

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Sec. 1908. 8 We believe that Chabad meets all necessary requirements to qualify for intervention as of right. First, Chabad's application is clearly timely. … The plaintiffs are clearly adversaries to Chabad's interest, and Chabad's original defender, the city of Grand Rapids, has abandoned that role by its failure to appeal.

Joseph R. Kuhar v. William Hanton

836 F.2d 1348 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 1988

IV. 27 Defendant also argues that summary judgment may be affirmed because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Sherrill, 827 F.2d at 1106 . 4 Carried to its logical conclusion, this argument would preclude appellate review of any finding of qualified immunity 5 The trial judge did not really address the issue of qualified immunity

Ovall Dale Kendall v. The Hoover Company

751 F.2d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 27, 1984

prima facie case of discrimination requires that a plaintiff demonstrate that (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was discharged [or otherwise discriminated against with respect to his employment]; (3) he was qualified … Clearly plaintiff’s proffered genuine issue of fact concerning his lay-off, retirement or termination is not “material” within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).

DePalma v. Metropolitan Government

40 F. App'x 187 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 2002

As to whether Plaintiffs established causation-in-fact, the district court made the following findings. … Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a).

Hugh B. MULLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Manuel LUJAN, Jr., Secretary, United States Department of Interior, Defendant-Appellee

928 F.2d 207 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 18, 1991

Congress established its severance pay system “to bridge the gap between employment and reemployment.” Ill Cong.Rec. 12489 (1965). … Plaintiff was denied severance pay under this provision because he qualified for an immediate annuity.

Neinast v. Bd Trustees Columbus

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 2003

immunity. … “Due process of law or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal] laws” guarantees ‘no particular form of procedure; it protects that occur under color of state law.

Mohamed Ajami v. Daniel Saab

436 F. App'x 458 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 2011

The defendant may immediately appeal a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds “if (1) the defendant is a public official asserting qualified immunity, and (2) the issue on appeal is not what facts the … parties may be able to prove, but whether the plaintiff’s facts, taken at their best, show a violation of clearly established law.”

Onilea Neal v. Robert Bergland

646 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 1981

None of these provisions include a clearly defined obligation on the part of FmHA running to plaintiff to perform any supervisory function, but instead speak in terms of discretion on the part of FmHA to render such assistance … The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., authorizes suit against the United States for this kind of claim since the act constitutes a waiver by the United States of its immunity from liability in tort for the

James P. Frazier v. Charlotte Jenkins

770 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 27, 2014

The Ohio Supreme Court found “no error, plain or otherwise” on. direct review, clearly rejecting the federal claim on the merits. State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 , 873 N.E.2d 1263 ,1291-92 (2007). … (internal quotation marks omitted)), and a remarkable irony given the “well-established principle of federalism that a state decision resting on an adequate foundation of state substantive law is immune from review in the

United States v. James Edgar Fleener

900 F.2d 914 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 9, 1990

In light of appellee’s criminal history category of one, the court established the Guideline range at 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment and a fine range of $5,000 to $50,000. … The background commentary is referenced to Application Note 1 to 3E1.1, which lists seven noninclusive considerations in determining whether a defendant qualifies for the provision.

Danta Davis v. Dennis Straub, Warden

445 F.3d 908 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 2006

This means that to determine what constitutes “clearly established” law, we look to the law established by Supreme Court holdings, and not its dicta. Lakin v. Stine, 431 F.3d 959 (6th Cir.2005) (citing Ruimveld v. … An explicit statement from the Supreme Court is not necessary; rather, “the legal principles and standards flowing from [Supreme Court] precedent” also qualify as “clearly established law.”

Maria A. Warren D/B/A Warren's Grocery v. United States

932 F.2d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 10, 1991

But in the instant case we believe that Plaintiff established the invalidity of the administrative action by a preponderance, and the district court's ruling to the contrary is clearly erroneous. … The record discloses no allegations of impropriety on Plaintiff's part, and the United States admits that Plaintiff is otherwise fully qualified to participate in the food stamp program.

S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County

499 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2007

Although the Supreme Court has established general principles with respect to access claims, what is missing from these cases is a clearly defined framework in which to analyze these claims. 2 We find D’Amario, 639 F.Supp … We conclude that neither DeNicola or White Buffalo qualify as state actors under any of the state-action formulations.

United States v. Thomas L. Kubeck

487 F.2d 1256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 7, 1973

He contends that the proof did not establish that he had knowledge of the fraud. … Kubeck clearly knew that the women had no intention of living in the house.

In Re Professionals Direct Insurance

578 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2009

In essence, its position is that the documents prepared by its attorneys while having “dual function” necessarily have a dual purpose and are thus immune from discovery. But that does not follow. … It did not involve the common law exception to the applicability of § 2317.02(A) that was established in Boone v. Vanliner, 91 Ohio St.3d 209 , 744 N.E.2d 154 (2001).

N.A.A.C.P., Detroit Branch v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n

900 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 1990

Of course, § 703(h) and its proviso does not immunize all seniority systems from attack under the civil rights statutes. It refers only to “bona fide” systems. … Board of Examiners & Bd. of Educ., 534 F.2d 993 , 998 (2d Cir.1976) (“Congress has clearly placed its stamp of approval upon seniority systems in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2”; “[t]hat plaintiffs herein are proceeding under 42 U.S.C

James R. Penny v. United Parcel Service

128 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 22, 1997

Additionally, the record clearly indicates that plaintiffs ability to work is not affected by his impairment. … If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish a legitimate, nondiseriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.

Noel Williams v. Kimberly Zurz

503 F. App'x 367 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 30, 2012

Qualified Immunity Because Williams has not demonstrated that a violation of her constitutional or statutory rights occurred, we agree with the district court that Zurz is entitled to qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

United States v. Michael Angelo Flowal

163 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 29, 1998

Hence, this was the kind of opinion that a qualified expert is allowed to give under Rule 702. … It is well established that prior convictions can be used to enhance a defendant’s sentence. Consequently, the use of defendant’s prior convictions in the present ease does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause.