Case law

Harris v. Haeberlin

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2008

While the dissent is correct in pointing out that Hernandez is a plurality opinion, we cite to Hernandez for its explication of Batson’s holdings, which beyond doubt qualify as clearly established federal law.4 Turning directly … It is therefore questionable whether it would even qualify as “clearly established federal law.”

United States of America, Cross-Appellant (90-1260) v. Ronald Hodges (90-1124/1260), Cross-Appellee, Robert Hodges (90-1154), Timothy Hodges (90-1155)

935 F.2d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 7, 1991

Based on the record, we cannot hold that the district court’s findings were clearly erroneous. B. … Anders, 899 F.2d 570, 580 (6th Cir.1990) (“Wedle does not qualify as a minimal participant in the offense as the evidence presented fails to conclusively show that she lacked knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure

Michael Rimmer v. Eric Holder, Jr.

700 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 2012

As the Supreme Court has observed, not only does “Exemption 6 require[] that the invasion of privacy be ‘clearly unwarranted,’ [while] the adverb ‘clearly’ is omitted from Exemption 7(C),” but “Exemption 6 [also] refers to … In state court the federal government is shielded by sovereign immunity, which prevents the state court from enforcing a subpoena. . . .

Harold Wayne Nichols v. Stanton Heidle, Warden

725 F.3d 516 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2013

“[I]t is not an unreasonable application of clearly established [fjederal law for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by [the Supreme] Court.” … None of these cases provides clearly established precedent on this particular point.

Jonathan Lindsey v. Gretchen Whitmer

124 F.4th 408 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 20, 2024

The plaintiff must establish an “injury in fact,”  No. 24-1413 Lindsey et al. v. Whitmer et al. … The legislators claim that Elections Clause violations deprive them of a “right, privilege, or immunity” enforceable under § 1983.

Dan Bowers v. The City of Flint

325 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2003

To allege a violation of their substantive due process rights, the residents must assert either the "denial of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or by federal statute" or an official act which "` … Id. 34 In this case, the ordinance implementing the five percent discount clearly explained that "[w]ater and sewer bills shall, as soon as practicable set forth the discounted amount and the last day to take advantage of

McCann L. Reid v. Memphis Publishing Company

468 F.2d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 1972

or potential employee’s religious belief contrary to the employer’s established and required work schedule, the court concludes that religious discrimination has not been established by plaintiff’s proof, and concludes, … Dewey was allowed to secure a qualified replacement when he was assigned to work on Sundays if he had been willing to do so.

United States v. Troy Hockenberry

730 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2013

“A finding is clearly erroneous only if the record as a whole leaves the reviewing court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Kerman v. … Moreover, the district court recalled that Hockenberry had answered questions clearly, and had not appeared unaware, at the time of the guilty plea.

Jackie Killian v. Yorozu Automotive Tennessee, Inc.

454 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2006

In order to qualify for leave, Killian was required to submit a medical certification. … Its action was clearly a violation of the FMLA. Under 29 C.F.R. § 825.311 , Killian had fifteen days to provide the certification, not six.

Martin v. Producers Pipe Line Co.

113 F.2d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 7, 1940

Hence the jurisdictional prerequisites for establishment of a three-judge court to determine these questions did not exist. … Petroleum Exploration, 253 Ky. 119 , 68 S.W.2d 777, 780 , which declares: “It is to be noted in the first group, including pipe line companies and gas companies specifically, that the statute does not undertake to define or qualify

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.

Brittany Osberry v. Zane Slusher

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 13, 2018

arrest violates a clearly established right. Kent, 810 F.3d at 396 (“It is clearly established in this Circuit that the use of a Taser on a non-resistant suspect constitutes excessive force.” … The Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. C.

U.S. Padding Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

865 F.2d 750 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), findings of fact "shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous." … We find no basis for concluding that the tax court's ruling was clearly erroneous, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), and we AFFIRM.

Hamilton v. General Electric Co.

556 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 2009

Under these circumstances, Hamilton’s failure to comply with Blair’s orders clearly constituted refusal to comply with “specific work directions from your supervisor” as referenced in defendant’s August 15, 2005, termination … The majority’s holding merely encourages sanctioned employees like Hamilton to file discrimination charges, thereby obtaining “instant immunity” from their employers’ supervision and punishment.

Keyes v. Paducah & IR Co.

61 F.2d 611 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 1932

Currency of the United States appointed appellant as receiver, who duly qualified and took charge of all of the bank’s assets. … Ed. 1089 : “It would have been equally competent for respondent to have provided for the purchase of the bonds either by the creation of a trust of funds in the hands of the bank, to be used for that purpose, or by establishing

Halbert v. Yousif

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 20, 2000

In an attempt to “establish[ ] a much-needed, bright-line test for determining finality [and] providing certainty for . . . … Accordingly, we find that we clearly have no jurisdiction in We therefore lack subject matter jurisdiction under 28 the Yousifs’ appeal.

Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley

675 F.3d 580 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 27, 2012

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an individual may bring a private cause of action against anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or conferred by federal … Indeed, not all allegations of emotional injury are sufficient to establish First Amendment retaliation.

Gilberto Garcia-Romo v. William P. Barr

940 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 2019

Although § 1229b(b)(1)(a) establishes that the ten-year period is measured by the “date of such application,” Congress also established a separate stop-time rule that measures the ten-year period based on different intervening … The Lopez court held that “the statute speaks clearly: residence is terminated ‘when the alien is served a notice to appear.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,723 Jerry D. Fridrich v. J. C. Bradford

542 F.2d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 15, 1976

[T]he aim of the rule [10b-5] in cases such as this is to qualify, as between insiders and outsiders, the doctrine of caveat emptor —not to establish' a scheme of investors’ insurance. List v. … An insider should not be immunized from liability simply because he trades through intermediaries. See Strong v. Repide, 213 U.S. 419 , 29 S.Ct. 521 , 53 L.Ed. 853 (1909).

Begley v. Secretary Health and Human Services

966 F.2d 196 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 1992

services furnished, except that ... attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $75 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified … Id.III. 10 Plaintiffs challenge the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees on three grounds: 1) that the court clearly erred in establishing an hourly rate of $50 to $65; 2) that the court abused its discretion in