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.”

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

Richard Dabrowski, Cross-Appellant v. Warner-Lambert Company, Cross-Appellee

815 F.2d 1076 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 2, 1987

With regard to the position in Sterile Filling, there was no evidence that the person hired was not qualified for the job. Ms. … Warner-Lambert, it was his understanding that the “most qualified candidate” was to be picked.

United States v. James R. Jackson

25 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 1994

Contending that the government failed to establish that the amount of loss flowing from his various schemes exceeded $800,000, Jackson challenges the eleven-level enhancement of his base offense level under Section 2F1.1( … The district court’s determination is a factual one and should not be upset unless clearly erroneous. United States v.

Kathleen Pearce, on Behalf of Herself and as Next of Kin to Jeffrey Pearce, and on Behalf of the Minor Children of Kathleen Pearce and Jeffrey Pearce, and Annette Harris, on Behalf of Herself and as Next of Kin to Keith D. Harris v. United States

261 F.3d 643 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2001

Because no breach of duty occurred, the plaintiffs could not establish the second element of their admiralty negligence claim. … Code Ann. §§ 70-7-101 through 70-7-104, immunized the Corps from liability, even if it was negligent.

Erick Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc.

736 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 27, 2013

Welles-Bowen’s relationship with WB qualifies as an “affiliated business arrangement.” … They thus qualify for the affiliated business arrangement exemption.

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.

Donald Phillips v. Randy White

851 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 15, 2017

Phillips clearly qualifies for the “inordinate delay” exception to the exhaustion rule. … Thus, actual prejudice has been established.

Altin Shuti v. Loretta Lynch

828 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2016

“[A]n individual who engages in robbery,” the BIA opined, “clearly involves a substantial risk that physical force will be used in the ordinary case.” … If anything, it is “well established” that the Fifth Amendment “entitles” non-citizens to due process in removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993).

R. L. Gardner and Ruth Gardner v. The Nashville Housing Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, Charles H. Adair and June P. Adair v. The Nashville Housing Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee

468 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 1972

We held in the Greeneville case that subject matter jurisdiction was established, but that the case should not have proceeded without HUD as an indispensable party. … We think this is clearly a case of federal question jurisdiction. 7 However, as noted in the Greeneville case, supra, the statute which creates federal court jurisdiction, also makes HUD, the federal agency created to exercise

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. John Patrick Farrelly, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee

389 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 25, 2004

“To qualify for this reduction, Defendants [are] required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they had accepted responsibility for the crime committed.” United States v. … In this case, although Farrelly viewed the images on the Internet, he did not save, print, or download them to qualify as possession.

Geraldine Burley v. Jeffery Gagacki

729 F.3d 610 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 6, 2013

The federal defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity and plaintiffs failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that they used any force, much less excessive force, against them. … “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when it improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard.” Graham- Humphreys v.

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.

United States v. Demjanjuk

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 2004

that the district court so identification evidence was not clearly erroneous. … Jones, 107 been qualified as an expert . . . has employed techniques F.3d 1147, 1151 (6th Cir. 1997).

Hines, Inc. v. United States

551 F.2d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 1977

Both §§ 408 and 411, which are quoted above, clearly establish “the standard of conduct of a reasonable man” which the court may apply to defendant shipowner in this case. … Appellant’s cases are clearly inapposite.

Ernest Smith v. Detroit Federation Of Teachers, Local 231, American Federation Of Teachers, Afl-Cio

829 F.2d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 1987

Since, in our view, the magistrate erred in determining that Smith's suit was barred by clearly established judicial precedents, and furnished an insufficient basis for concluding that the action against DFT was motivated … Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 349-50 , 95 S.Ct. 449, 452-53 , 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974) ("While the principle that private action is immune from the restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment is well established and easily

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.

Pointer v. Wilkinson

502 F.3d 369 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 6, 2007

The PLRA requires prisoners who qualify for IFP status to pay an initial partial fee, followed by installment payments until the entire filing fee is paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b). 4 . … Mar. 10, 2006) (holding that dismissals, with or without prejudice, pursuant to rule established by Supreme Court in Heck v.

Corning Place Ohio, LLC v. CIR

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2025

The Tax Court did not err, let alone clearly err, in rejecting a valuation premised on a 34- story addition to the Garfield. … Because this qualifies as a gross valuation overstatement (and then some), Corning Place may not defend against the corresponding penalty based on its reliance on tax advice.

Fulcher v. Motley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 2006

In other words, we held that what was clearly established by Lilly was, in fact, clearly established before Lilly: “Douglas, Bruton, and Lee evidence that the Supreme Court had clearly established the principle that a co-defendant … Inconsistency Between the Kentucky Rule and Clearly Established Federal Law.