Case law

Donald Mallett, Petitioner/defendant-Appellant v. United States of America, Respondent/plaintiff-Appellee

334 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2003

It is clear, however, that *500 Mallett’s prior state convictions would not qualify as “controlled substance offenses” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 if the drugs with which he was charged with selling or possessing weighed less … Further, this circumstance leaves us with no option but to retain the classification of [the defendant’s] drug offense under the statute in effect at the time of his conviction which clearly qualifies as a serious drug offense

United States v. Chingman

89 F. App'x 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2004

Any findings of fact pertinent to the ineffective assistance of counsel inquiry are subject to a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review. See id. ”). … On the merits, then, Petitioner’s claim would clearly fail. The only question is whether the ineffective assistance of counsel claim should even reach the merits.

Andrew J. Palazzolo, Brandon v. Palazzolo, and Patrick v. Palazzolo v. Robert A. Benson and Dennis Kolenda

82 F.3d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 1996

Plaintiffs alleged violations of their constitutional rights and advanced related state law claims. 3 Defendants moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs' federal and state claims on the grounds of qualified immunity. … The defendants pursued the challenged conduct in the course of their judicial duties and, thus, were clearly entitled to judicial immunity.

Lyle Heyward v. Heather Cooper

88 F.4th 648 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 13, 2023

immunity as a defense, so we don’t address it. 2“When the defendant challenges the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.” … Page 8 331–32; see also In re Hood, 319 F.3d at 758, 760 (similar holding in the context of sovereign immunity); Scott v. Tennessee, 878 F.2d 382 (6th Cir. 1989) (sovereign immunity); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Global Med.

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.

United States v. Robin Riley, Jr.

726 F.3d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2013

Clearly, Riley’s plea agreement does not “expressly use [§ 2D1.1] to establish the term of imprisonment” and thus is not “based on” § 2D1.1 under the definition put forward by Justice Sotomayor in Freeman. … Riley’s case is clearly distinguishable.

William Howard Dunn v. United States

238 F.2d 908 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 1956

Wednesday, April 22, 1953, she decided it best to remain behind to establish an alibi by frequently construing the time, etc. … “Thus, I am either innocent or my wife is equally guilty, and has enjoyed the fruits of her crime with immunity. My request is: Either release me or convict her.”

Jerome R. Tuohy v. Ford Motor Company

675 F.2d 842 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 1982

Tuohy argues on appeal, as he did in the district court, that a rule does not qualify as a BFOQ just because it is reasonable. … The factual dispute is clearly drawn and it relates to a material issue. On the record before the district court Ford was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thus summary judgment was improper.

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.

United States v. Presser

828 F.2d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 1987

I write separately to note my disagreement with the court’s conclusion that there is a qualified right of access to potential Brady materials presented for an in camera determination by the trial judge, or that there is a … A motion had been filed to disclose material filed under seal; clearly, the district court had jurisdiction and it should have been exercised.

Erick Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc.

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.

Hooks v. Hooks

771 F.2d 935 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 1985

He held that while Cornett would also be entitled to such immunity, the complaint failed to state a claim against Cornett since it did not allege any unlawful action by him (presumably because he did not participate in the … “If the question is whether an individual’s contract with an out-of-state party alone can automatically establish minimum contacts in the other party’s home forum, we believe the answer clearly is that it cannot.”

Woodward v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

991 F.2d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 1993

(a) Establishing interim presumption. … Director, OWCP, 484 U.S. 135 , 108 S.Ct. 427 , 98 L.Ed.2d 450 (1987) that a black lung claimant must establish *319 at least one of the qualifying facts in 20 C.F.R. § 727.203 (a) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Shawnee Coal Company v. Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior

661 F.2d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 5, 1981

issue, the initial focus is on Shawnee’s contention that the Secretary exceeded his authority because Shawnee’s tipple is not an “activity ... in connection with a surface coal mine ...” 30 U.S.C. § 1291 (28) and as such is immune … From the Act’s inception in August, 1977, until it ceased operations in December, 1978, a period exceeding twelve months, Shawnee unquestionably qualified as an operator.

United States v. Township of Brighton

153 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 1998

As indicated by the term “or” separating part A from part B, an area which qualifies as one of the entities set forth in part A need not satisfy the condition set forth in part B. … The Collett property clearly operated as a single landfill, and is therefore a “facility” under CERCLA. 1 See City of N. Miami, Fla. v.

Hobert Tackett v. M&G Polymers USA, LLC

733 F.3d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 12, 2013

The district court did not clearly err in finding the cap agreements inapplicable to Apple Grove. … Given that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the cap letters were not part of the pre-2005 CBAs, the district court also did not clearly err in interpreting the pre-2005 CBAs as vesting a right to lifetime

Siciliano v. Cambridge Home Health Care Inc.

65 F. App'x 542 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 29, 2003

/Private, also an established business providing home health care from several branch offices. … Instead, she broadly claims, without pointing to any supporting evidence, that “[t]he district court committed reversible error in its application of the relevant factors, which clearly support the conclusion that Cambridge

Nazeeh Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 30, 2010

With regard to Younis’s claim that he was the victim of a hostile work environment, that standard has clearly not been met. The allegations in Younis’s complaint exceed the scope of his EEOC charge. … was qualified for the position; and (4) that a similarly-situated employee outside the protected class or classes was treated more favorably than he.

Charlotte Mays v. Buckeye Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. And Frederick B. Parker

277 F.3d 873 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 22, 2002

was qualified for the credit; and (4) despite Plaintiffs qualification, Defendants denied her credit application. … Plaintiff clearly had no intention to invoke federal constitutional rights, and the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Plaintiffs “due process and natural justice” claim solely pursuant to a Fourteenth Amendment

United States v. Kevin Davis

751 F.3d 769 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 28, 2014

The purpose of the modified categorical approach is to establish “whether the court documents establish that the defendant ‘necessarily admitted’ the elements [or was convicted] of a predicate offense.” United States v. … The government argues that we should affirm on the alternative basis that the 1989 sexual battery conviction need not involve a minor to qualify as a predicate offense under § 2252A(b)(2).