Case law

United States v. Quentin Sherer

770 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 22, 2014

The district court’s extension of the trial date until March 5 explained why the continuance met this standard: The government needed time to procure DNA evidence that could definitively establish Sherer’s guilt or innocence … The district court sentenced him as a career offender anyway, as “his history clearly demonstrated a violent criminal pattern and future threat.” Id. We affirmed—just as we did in United States v. Robinson, 357 F.

Case v. United States

633 F.2d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 1980

The Standard of Judicial Review 28 The government contends that we need not confine ourselves to a "clearly erroneous" standard of review in this case. … It is, therefore, an ordinary issue of fact, subject to reversal on appeal only if we believe the District Court's findings were "clearly erroneous."V.

United States v. O'DELL

160 F.2d 304 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 10, 1947

S. 353 , 65 S.Ct. 304 , 89 L.Ed. 294 , a case involving facts similar to those of the Ever Krisp case, held the federal lien to have priority, and that the judgment herein is therefore clearly erroneous. … The stipulation covering levy is as follows: “That one Giles Kavanagh, the duly appointed, qualified and acting Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Michigan, on September 8, 1941, as said Collector, gave written

Lisa Williams v. City of Georgetown, Ky.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 24, 2019

ANALYSIS Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where that officer’s conduct did not violate clearly established rights. Peatross v. … We review claims of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint “adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.” Back v.

Otis Lee Fuson v. A.R. Jago

773 F.2d 55 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 1985

Hearsay Exceptions Martin was clearly unavailable to testify at the petitioner’s trial. … Thus, we cannot, as urged by the state, conclude that Martin’s statements clearly fall within the ambit of the hearsay exception established by Ohio Rule of Evidence 804(B)(3).

Karyn Risch v. Royal Oak Police Department

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 2009

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Risch, as we must in evaluating a motion for summary judgment, it is clear that Risch was as qualified as or better qualified than either Moore or Spencer. … However, our law is well-established that “rumors, conclusory allegations and subjective beliefs . . . are wholly insufficient evidence to establish a claim of discrimination as a matter of law.”

United States v. James Wooten

689 F.3d 570 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 2012

Thus, we have clearly established that the statement “I have a gun” can constitute a threat of death for purposes of the § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) enhancement. Other circuits are in accordance with this general proposition. … We express no disagreement with the established law in either this circuit or our sister circuits.

Dendel v. Washington

647 F. App'x 612 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 9, 2016

See id Therefore, the state court’s rejection of the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See Williams v. … established law.

Sarah M. Goostree, (84-5752), (84-5869) v. State of Tennessee, Montgomery County, Tennessee, (84-5869), Montgomery County Quarterly Court, (84-5752)

796 F.2d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 1986

Thus, if sex was a factor in the failure to hire plaintiff, a female, then you must find sex discrimination occurred, regardless of whether the male who was hired, defendant Van Meter, was more qualified. … In light of our decision in White & White, this is clearly an incorrect standard.

Sheila Vinson v. Campbell County Fiscal Court Nickie Hornsby and William Stoll

820 F.2d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 4, 1987

Plaintiff clearly had a protected liberty interest in freedom from bodily restraint and freedom of bodily movement. Ingraham v. … Plaintiff argues that, due to the Kentucky state law of sovereign immunity, she does not have an adequate state remedy against the Campbell County Fiscal Court.

Andre Williams v. Betty Mitchell

792 F.3d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2015

Second, the Ohio Court of Appeals’s ruling is contrary to the established definition of intellectual disability as set forth in clearly established Supreme Court precedent. … As a result, the court’s categorical exclusion of the relevant evidence was contrary to clearly established Federal law.

Fleming v. Xerox Connect, Inc.

50 F. App'x 211 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 30, 2002

Mid-South Milling Co., 762 S.W.2d 552, 556 (Tenn.1988) (holding that the plaintiff must show “a clear violation of some well-defined and established public policy”). … In sum, we agree with the district court that no reasonable factfinder could find that Xerox was clearly engaged in illegal conduct that jeopardized the public good.

Collins v. I.R.S.

86 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 23, 1996

The defendants established they are entitled to qualified immunity, because there is an absence of evidence to show that, at the time of the alleged violations, reasonable public officials acting in the defendants' positions … Stenger, 27 F.3d 1120, 1124 (6th Cir.1994). 7 Defendant Znidarsic is entitled to qualified immunity because he acted with objective reasonableness and did not deny Collins any clearly established constitutional right when

Corey Offineer v. Detective Roger Kelly

454 F. App'x 407 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 2011

Kelly is entitled to qualified immunity on Corey’s Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim. … In other words, the issue is “whether, assuming the plaintiff’s version of the facts to be true, the plaintiffs have shown a violation of their clearly established constitutional rights.”

Citizens for Tax v. Deters

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 2008

The court found that the district court did not clearly err in rejecting the petitioner’s evidence of circulators leaving or refusing to work in Oregon as “unsupported speculation.” Id. at 964. … The petitioner knows how much money it will need to raise at the outset to qualify its initiative.

United States v. Ford

344 F. App'x 167 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 2009

This payment also established a basis for the enhancement under § 2C1.1(b)(1). … The payments made to Ford were made in a manner to clearly influence more than one event. The evidence establishes that each payment was accomplished by another action by Ford in his authority as a state senator.

Robert Andrews v. Hickman County, Tennessee

592 F. App'x 491 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 9, 2015

After an interlocutory appeal, this court granted qualified immunity to all the defendants but Wade, as we believed a reasonable jury could find that Wade entered the couple’s home without a warrant and without their consent … , in violation of their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Richard J. Rybarczyk, Minoru Mizuba, and William Rittenhouse v. Trw, Inc. And Trw Salaried Pension Plan

235 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

says, and that is clearly the logic of our decision in Costantino . … Specifically, I.R.C. § 417(e)(2) and (3) provided as follows: “(2) Plan may distribute benefit in excess of $3,500 only with consent. — If— (A) the present value of the qualified joint and survivor annuity or the qualified

Speers v. County of Berrien

196 F. App'x 390 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 2006

The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) they violated Speers’ constitutional rights and (2) those rights were clearly established at the time of the incident. Saucier v. … All of the individual defendants deserve qualified immunity with respect to the plaintiffs’ unlawful-detention claim under federal law.

Townsend v. Comm Social Security

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2005

In order to qualify for such reimbursement, however, the EAJA requires that “[a] party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court” its application … Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) establishes that, in a civil case to which a federal officer is a party, the time for appeal ends sixty days after entry of judgment.