Case law

United States Steel Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission

426 F.2d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 1970

Steel, are two factual parameters which completely immunize the instant acquisition. … 'The District Court required the newspapers to submit a plan for divesture and re-establishment of independent competition.

Steve Black v. Dixie Consumer Products LLC

516 F. App'x 412 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 22, 2013

The court also determined that the carriage agreement between Western and Georgia- Pacific qualified Georgia-Pacific as a “contractor” under the KWCA. … First, there is no indication that Congress intended the FMCSA to preempt state workers’ compensation statutes where the purposes of the two statutes are clearly distinct.

Harold E. Steele v. Industrial Development Board Of Metropolitan Government Nashville

301 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 14, 2002

First, the bond must fall within one of the enumerated categories: "(A) an exempt facility bond, (B) a qualified mortgage bond, (C) a qualified veterans' mortgage bond, (D) a qualified small issue bond, (E) a qualified student … loan bond, (F) a qualified redevelopment bond, or (G) a qualified 501(c)(3) bond." 26 U.S.C. § 141 (e)(1) (1994).

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.

Helwig v. Vencor, Inc.

251 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 2001

Whether certain of these statements, which are clearly "forward-looking" within the meaning of the Reform Act, enjoy safe harbor immunity is a close question. … We would note that the amended complaint clearly alleges otherwise, with accompanying charts. See Am. Compl. ¶ 12, J.A. 98.

Crocker v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n

980 F.2d 382 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 1992

Following Carter’s denial Metro Schools classified Michael as having a learning disability that qualified as a handicapping condition under the EHA. … In accordance with the EHA’s required procedures, a team of teachers and psychologists met on September 5, 1988 to establish an Individualized Educational Plan (“IEP”) for Michael to follow at McGavock.

Morales v. American Honda Motor Co.

151 F.3d 500 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 30, 1998

While Kitzes was qualified as an expert to testify regarding the manner in which the CPSC collects statistics on consumer product safety, which he did, Kitzes was not qualified to testify as an expert regarding the design … To permit the introduction of the-underlying statistics, but not the ultimate decision made by -the government regarding those statistics, clearly constituted prejudicial error.

Oatman v. Potter

92 F. App'x 133 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2004

qualified for the position; and 4) that similarly situated non-protected employees were treated more favorably than plaintiff. … Furthermore, as to Winter’s testimony, there can be no viable Fifth Amendment violation inasmuch as Inspector Winter’s testimony is covered under absolute immunity since his statements stemmed from his grand jury testimony

Arthur Bell v. Carol Howes

703 F.3d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2012

A district court’s factual findings, meanwhile, will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous. Brooks v. Tennessee, 626 F.3d 878, 888 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ivory v. … , not considered at trial, that Sylvertooth was “a volunteer . . . at the time he gave his initial testimony” to the police, meaning that when he first identified Chill, he “was not testifying under any kind of grant or immunity

Hayden v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Flexible Benefits Program

763 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2014

The court reversed and remanded for an award of disability benefits because the medical evidence submitted by the treating physicians and therapists established that the claimant was unable to work “due to a combination of … I do not dispute that the Plan clearly limits benefits for a mental disability to a period of 24 months.

Roger Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension Plan

769 F.3d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 14, 2014

Smith elected to receive $1,066.54 under the qualified plan, and $1,122.97 under the non-qualified plan, for a total of $2,189.51 per month. 1 The document through which Smith selected this election was titled “AEGON USA … Neither the VERRP booklet nor the AEGON Companies Pension Plan booklet explains the difference between qualified and non-qualified benefits. .

Stotts v. Memphis Fire Department

858 F.2d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 1988

However, Jones had never been appointed to the intermediate rank of driver and hence was not qualified for the position even through a demotion. … Deputy Chief Bryant testified that Jones would not have been eligible to hold the driver’s position because he had never been qualified for it.

Edward M. Solon v. Jerry Ellsworth

916 F.2d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 22, 1990

to clearly established law.' " Id. at 191 (citation omitted). … In this case, defendants' qualified immunity defense is founded upon the existence of reasonable grounds for their belief formed at the time, in light of all the circumstances and clearly established law, that the use of

Francis v. Pike County

875 F.2d 863 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 1989

immunity defense of good faith because their actions did not violate clearly established constitutional law. … Plaintiff has not addressed defendants' assertion of qualified immunity, and defendants did not raise this defense in their motion for summary judgment.

United States v. James Rogers

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 2010

Moreover, for an offense to qualify as a crime of violence, it need only create a “serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (emphasis added). … One might agree with those findings, or not—but in our judgment they were not clearly erroneous. The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

United States v. Nelson Bernardo Gomez-Lemos

939 F.2d 326 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 1991

The District Court made no finding establishing that defendant prevented either Barraza or Osorio from testifying at trial. I. … For example, entering into a plea agreement or receiving use immunity does nothing to change a co-conspirator’s desire to “avenge himself” if he is so inclined.

Thomas v. Speedway

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 30, 2007

And because establishing the applicability of an FLSA exemption is an affirmative defense, [the defendant] has the burden to establish the . . . elements by a preponderance of the evidence. … Whether she qualifies for the executive exemption depends entirely upon our assessment of the other prong.

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 .

United States v. George L. Kelly, Thomas Francis Kelly, Sr., Thomas Francis Kelly, Jr. And Louis Efkeman

328 F.2d 227 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 1964

We think the legislative history of Section 1953 and its companion Section 1084 clearly indicates that Congress did not intend to inhibit publications containing racing results or predictions. … “(c) Nothing contained in this section shall create immunity from criminal prosecution under any laws of any State, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, territory, possession, or tbe District of Columbia.

Pearl Dunlap v. Sevier County, Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 2021

and that, based on his experience, parties were generally reluctant to engage in discovery before the court decided the qualified immunity issue. … The Dunlaps and Baker knew of the relevant issues as early as September 2018, because the county defendants plainly pleaded qualified immunity and other immunity defenses in their answer to the complaint.