Case law

Kenneth Howard v. Wayne County Sheriff's Office

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 16, 2011

Because the district court therefore deemed the right asserted by Howard as not “clearly established,” the court found Wood and Hardie “shielded from liability by qualified immunity.” Id. … Qualified immunity from liability is available to government officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Century Business Services, Inc. v. Bryant

69 F. App'x 306 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 8, 2003

The district court’s finding that SR Accounting was a party to the Merger Agreement is clearly erroneous. … However, a corporation can have only one principal place of business for purposes of establishing its state of citizenship. Gafford, 997 F.2d at 161 .

Jansen v. City of Cincinnati

977 F.2d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 13, 1992

Paragraph 22 of the decree states in pertinent part: Subject to the availability of qualified applicants, Defendants shall adopt and seek to achieve a goal of hiring sufficient numbers of qualified minority persons to achieve … The test merely ensures, as required by the consent decree, that each fire recruit is “qualified.”

Calvin Dibrell v. City of Knoxville, Tenn.

984 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2021

Section 1983 nevertheless establishes different statutory rules depending on the type of seizure. … It establishes a singular ban on “unreasonable” “seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.

Feliciano v. City of Cleveland

816 F.2d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 1987

The major issue underlying the availability of a qualified immunity defense was whether the conduct, request for and testing of urine samples followed by plaintiffs' resignation, violated clearly established law. … Appellants claim that on the date of the event in question, their conduct was not clearly established as having been violative of any rights of the plaintiffs under the Fourth Amendment, and further that defendants could

Gary West v. Ky. Horse Racing Comm'n

972 F.3d 881 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 2020

Without review by the Commission, the decision to disqualify Maximum Security was not “made effective by an agency head,” KRS § 13B.010(6), and thus does not qualify as a “final order[] of an agency,” id. … Also, “[i]t has long been established that the violation of a state statute or regulation is insufficient alone to make a claim cognizable under § 1983.” Stanley v.

William Morrison Smith v. United States Postal Service

742 F.2d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 10, 1984

. § 793 , stipulates that all federal contracts contain a provision requiring the contractor to “take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified handicapped individuals.” … The First Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiff’s claim fell clearly within the comprehensive federal-state scheme set forth in the EHA for the provision of special education to handicapped children, and that Congress

United States v. Cecil Gibson (90-6403) and Johnny Ray Baker (90-6431)

985 F.2d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 10, 1993

At Gibson’s presentencing hearing, the government conceded that Gibson was intoxicated “to the point where he would be ... qualified to be convicted under the Kentucky DUI statutes.” J.A. at 41. … Far from clearly erroneous, we believe the district court’s’ denial was clearly correct.

Allan C. Miller and Betty G. Miller v. United States

583 F.2d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 31, 1978

To this end, the treaty establishes the IJC, which performs certain judicial, investigative, administrative and engineering functions. … It also includes determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing plans, specifications or schedules of operations.”

United States v. Rede-Mendez

680 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 21, 2012

application in Shepard, 544 U.S. at 16 , 125 S.Ct. 1254 , and the preliminary-examination transcript in Medina-Almaguer, 559 F.3d at 423 , a statement of probable cause is a “gateway step in the criminal process” that does not establish … Nonetheless, the categorical approach requires us to consider “only the facts necessarily admitted by the defendant in pleading guilty even if we are forced to ‘feign agnosticism about clearly knowable facts.’ ” McMurray,

United States v. Douglas Wright

747 F.3d 399 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 2014

I agree with Judge Cole that Defendants Wright, Baxter, and Stevens qualify for the terrorism enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, and I concur in affirming their sentences. … “Based on our review of the record, we cannot say that the district court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous.” Id. at 518 .

Thornton v. Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Supplemental Retirement & Disability Fund

566 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2009

Thornton reasons that because the 1999 Benefits Increase was clearly not an “ancillary benefit,” a point Defendants appear to concede, the Court must necessarily characterize it as an “accrued benefit” under the 2002 Regulation … Under this interpretation of the 2002 Regulation, Defendants’ rescission of the 1999 Benefits Increase for pre-February 1, 1999 retirees would clearly violate the anti-cutback rule.

Charles DiPasquale v. James Hawkins

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 12, 2018

established, making Hawkins’s assertion of qualified immunity at this stage of the case without merit. … When a defendant appeals denial of a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity, we review “de novo whether the complaint alleges violation of a clearly established constitutional right

Cicero v. Borg-Warner Automotive, Inc.

280 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

Finding that Cicero failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because he did not show he was qualified for his position, the district court granted Borg-Warner's summary judgment motion. 1 The district … Co., 455 Mich. 688, 695 , 568 N.W.2d 64, 68 (1997); Lytle, 458 Mich. at 172 , 579 N.W.2d at 914 . 24 Cicero clearly satisfies the first two elements of the prima facie case.

Hallison H. Young v. Bonnie Burks

849 F.2d 610 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

It was not "clearly established law" that these disclosures were unauthorized. Indeed, the alleged disclosures appear to have been specifically authorized by the internal revenue code. See 26 U.S.C. … also asserted that the district court abused its discretion by staying discovery pending its resolution of the qualified immunity claim.

Ivery v. Chrysler Corp.

31 F. App'x 841 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2002

Nothing about the peculiar nature of the CBA-established Program, including the fact that the CBA established the criteria for entry, meaningfully differentiates this case from Smolarek and O’Shea. … action; (3) that they were qualified for the position; and (4) that they were treated differently from similarly situated members of the unprotected class.

United States v. Young

847 F.3d 328 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2017

The government sought to admit the recording to establish drug quantities and to establish the connection between Young and Porter. … They’re clearly serious offenses. There’s no way around that.

Commonwealth of Ky. v. Joseph R. Biden

57 F.4th 545 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 12, 2023

The federal government’s sovereign immunity typically makes monetary losses like these irreparable. Kentucky v. U.S. ex rel. Hagel, 759 F.3d 588, 599 (6th Cir. 2014). … Due to the federal government’s sovereign immunity, those expenses, too, are unrecoverable. Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC v. FDA, 16 F.4th 1130, 1142 (5th Cir. 2021).

Carol Ege v. Joan Yukins, Warden

485 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 2007

However, because I believe that Ege’s claim was untimely, and that the admission of bite-mark evidence does not constitute an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, I dissent from the majority … War-nick’s probability testimony is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1), and because the state court proceedings did not result in an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent under the standards

Rose Meckley v. Sigmund Woodrich Margaret Hambrick Director of Bureau of Prisons

960 F.2d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 13, 1992

Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from her claim for monetary relief, because the policy in question does not violate any clearly established constitutional right. See Harlow v. … to overcome defendants' qualified immunity defense.