Case law

Lakeshore Terminal And Pipeline Company v. Defense Fuel Supply Center

777 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 1985

accepting transportation tenders while cancelling solicited bids. 7 On appeal the plaintiffs contend that the district court relied on evidence of debatable probative value while overlooking contradictory evidence by better qualified … The factual findings of the district court are supported by the evidence of record, and are not clearly erroneous. We are bound by these findings.

Maurice Moore v. Carmen Palmer

696 F. App'x 740 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2017

“Qualified immunity protects government officials sued under § 1983 from damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … An order denying qualified immunity is considered a final, appealable order “because it is conclusive, separable from the merits of the action, and, as the purpose of qualified immunity is to provide officers with ‘immunity

United States v. Mitchell

9 F. App'x 485 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 17, 2001

These determinations are not clearly erroneous. … The district court’s conclusion that Vincent qualified as a minor participant rather than a minimal participant rests on a plausible interpretation of the evidence, and therefore it is not clearly erroneous.

44 soc.sec.rep.ser. 29, Medicare&medicaid Guide P 42,133 Kimberly Audette, on Behalf of Herself and as Next Friend of Her Minor Children Sharon McMurphy on Behalf of Herself and Her Minor Children Betty Keyser Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, Each on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Gail Wilensky, Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration, Christine Babbitt, on Behalf of Herself and as Next Friend of Her Minor Children Kimberly Campbell, on Behalf of Herself and as Next Friend of Her Minor Children Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, Each on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons Sharon McMurphy on Behalf of Herself and Her Minor Child Cornelia Sims v. The State of Michigan, Through Its Department of Social Services Gerald Miller, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Michigan Department of Social Services Eileen Ellis, in Her Official Capacity as Acting Director of the Medical Services Administration of the Michigan Department of Social Services

19 F.3d 254 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 1994

In December 1990, the Michigan legislature reduced the payment levels for AFDC recipients and eliminated an optional Medicaid program (known as the OBRA/QMB program), which enabled qualified medicare beneficiaries to be eligible … See id. at 521-24 , 110 S.Ct. at 2523-25 . 9 "Section 1983 speaks in terms of 'rights, privileges, or immunities,' not violations of federal law." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp.

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.

Neal W. Roland v. Perry Johnson Thomas Phillips, Dale Foltz and Bernie Toland

856 F.2d 764 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 1988

To qualify for admission to 11 Block prior to August 1983, an inmate was required to refrain from major misconduct for twelve months and minor misconduct for six months. … A summary judgment determination should be distinguished from section 636(b)(1)(A) determinations, which are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review.

Jalowiec v. Bradshaw

657 F.3d 293 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 23, 2011

The Ohio Supreme Court’s resolution of this claim, finding no Strickland prejudice, was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. D. … The district court denied habeas relief, finding that the Ohio courts’ disposition of the claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

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.”

National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, Inc.

130 F.2d 363 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 1942

There was no contention then that the complaining organization was not bona fide a Union eligible to bring charges or qualified to function as a bargaining unit if selected by a majority of the respondent’s employees. … We have given no consideration to the contention that the articles in the “Friendly Forum” are protected by the guaranties and immunities of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the Unit *369 ed States, N.L.R.B. v.

Corey Bauman v. Scott Millisor

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 4, 2022

Qualified immunity The four officers invoked the defense of qualified immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … When such a defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Tlapanco v. Elges, 969 F.3d 638, 647 (6th Cir. 2020).

Thompson v. Bell

315 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2003

The Supreme Court in Williams held that a state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law or if … contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,’ ” thus entitling Williams to habeas relief.

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.

KI (USA) Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

35 F.3d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 1994

The General Counsel further argues that the discreet manner in which the Nakamura letter was offered to the Company’s employees qualifies under Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 282 N.L.R.B. 717 (1977), as the type' of “temperate presentation … We consider this finding of the hearing officer to be clearly erroneous.

Clark v. Adams

300 F. App'x 344 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 6, 2008

Similarly, the defendants argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity, but the district court deferred ruling on that argument and it is not presently before us. … immunity arguments).

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

United States v. Regis Adkins

729 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 5, 2013

.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. … Adkins cannot, by mere declaration, establish that he only fired shots in response to incoming gunfire.

Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority v. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.

240 F.3d 534 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2001

The mere proximity of petroleum businesses is not sufficient to render the court’s finding clearly erroneous. … The district court did not clearly err.

Dale Ross v. Campbell Soup Company

237 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2001

qualified’ to perform the job assigned to him, it is clear that Campbell Soup would not be entitled to summary judgment on that issue.” … In this case, we are persuaded that the district court did not err in concluding that Ross failed to establish that he had a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

American Transmissions, Inc., and Pentco Enterprises, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation

935 F.2d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 4, 1991

; (2) plaintiffs claims were barred by collateral estoppel; and (3) the government defendants Pirochta and Curtis were entitled to qualified immunity. 2 Having carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the … February 13, 1990) 2 The district court granted the defendants' Pirochta and Curtis's motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity on June 26, 1990. American Transmissions, Inc. v.

Wright v. National Warranty Co.

953 F.2d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 1992

Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the securities offered and sold by defendants qualified for an exemption from registration with the SEC. … Further, it is undisputed that the amount of the offering was $1,900,000, clearly within the limits set forth in Rule 505.