Case law

B & B Trucking, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

406 F.3d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 28, 2005

A. 32 The United States Postal Service is an agency of the United States and thus enjoys sovereign immunity, except to the extent that it is waived. … The alleged right to protect property from being entered and used, which is asserted by the truckers here, is clearly not based on any contract.

Valentine v. Konteh

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 2005

We agree with the District Court’s determination that “the Ohio Court of Appeals’ application of clearly established federal law was not only incorrect, but unreasonable.” … I also fail to see where the analysis by the Ohio Court of Appeals was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Pittsburgh Terminal Corp. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

875 F.2d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 1989

To reject the district court’s finding that the transaction was fair and reasonable, Pittsburgh Terminal must establish the finding to be clearly erroneous. As stated in United States v. … Admittedly, Pittsburgh Terminal did present some evidence, including the testimony of Robert Platt, a qualified financial expert, showing that $55 per share was too low a price for the Western Maryland stock.

Joseph Fortin v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

112 F.4th 411 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 12, 2024

The Vacancies Reform Act establishes a scheme to automatically fill vacant PAS offices with acting officers. … The rest of § 3346 confirms the conclusion that subsections (a)(1) and (2) establish independent triggering events.

Cmc Electric, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 673

221 F.3d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 19, 2000

The schematic clearly indicated that the conduit should terminate at least six inches below the neutral or secondary line, warning that extending the "conduit above the secondary or neutral position at any time may result … time by medical providers would not qualify as prompt under § 1926.50(b).

Lisa Vittetoe v. Blount Cnty., Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2021

Atkins has qualified immunity if he did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Wright v. City of Euclid, 962 F.3d 852, 864 (6th Cir. 2020). … In addition, Sheriff Berrong did not raise any qualified immunity defense in response to it.

William Dominque v. James A. Telb, Sheriff, J.G. Putnam, Assistant Deputy Director

884 F.2d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 1989

Putnam, on the basis of qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. … On remand, the trial court determined that defendant had not violated clearly established law.

Robert Young v. Campbell Cnty., Ky.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 2021

Young’s knee fracture clearly qualifies as a serious medical need. … Therefore, we affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Deputy Fassler. 3.

Champions Golf Club, Inc. v. The Champions Golf Club, Inc.

78 F.3d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 1996

We think, however, that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Houston and Nieholasville provide nearly identical services. … Amateur qualifying tournament in Cincinnati.

United States v. Michael Price

134 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 1998

In short, irrespective of the improperly excluded statements, the evidence at trial clearly established that Price’s involvement in the cocaine transaction was extensive. … The foregoing clearly establishes that the record in this case is not “devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.”

Sam & Ali, Inc. Aleb, Inc. Mallough, Inc. And Murib, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Liquor Control and William A. Vasil

158 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 1998

On the other hand, the law benefits the A-l-A licensee in that it authorizes the retail sale of beer for on-premises consumption and is immunized from local option restriction, whereas the D-5 businessperson is exposed to … The Code permits the following questions to appear on a local ballot regarding beer sales: (B) The following questions regarding the sale of beer by holders of C or D permits may be presented to the qualified electors of

Wood v. Tompkins

33 F.3d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 18, 1994

Sec. 1983 provides a private cause of action for "the deprivations of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States. Ever since Maine v. … Whitburn, 10 F.3d 1315 , 1319 (7th Cir.1993) ("We have previously held that Suter ... is not the death knell of the analytic framework established in Wilder."); Marshall v.

Mary Smith and William Morrison Smith v. City of Bad Axe David Miller, Officer County of Huron and Carol Henny, Four Seasons Health Care Center

74 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 22, 1996

defense of qualified immunity, which shields governmental officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … Consequently, he is entitled to qualified immunity. 13 Finally, we turn to the judgment rendered in favor of the municipal defendants, the County of Huron and City of Bad Axe.

Indemnity Ins. of North America v. Dow

174 F.2d 168 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 8, 1949

This does not follow the cessation of ordinary service, -but arises where the success of the business is dependent on the continued life of the employee.’ ” We find nothing in the foregoing that qualifies the application … In its holding, the trial court clearly discerned the sole issue in the case. The venture entered into by Miss Kruger and Dow was to make money out of the commercial operation of a plane.

Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger, (01-1447), Kimberly James, Intervening (01-1516)

288 F.3d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2002

Additionally, Professor Lempert testified regarding the lottery system, in which the Law School would lower its admissions standards, establish a numerical cut-off for “qualified” applicants, and then select randomly from … The Supreme Court applied Maries differently: "Clearly, in Kovacs, the plurality opinion puts forth the narrowest rationale for the Court's judgment.”

Community First Bank v. National Credit Union Administration

41 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 1994

Instead, it is a qualifying hurdle that plaintiffs must satisfy even if raised sua sponte by the court. … The geographical area’s boundaries must be clearly defined; and b.

Harry Calcutt III v. FDIC

37 F.4th 293 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

In those situations, the statutory provision would clearly cause harm. Ibid. … In Matter of Proffitt, the Board explained that “a judgment of improper and illegal behavior”—in that context, a court judgment awarding a bank to pay damages—plus legal fees could establish a qualifying loss.

Sandra Hernden v. Chippewa Valley Sch. Dist.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 16, 2025

‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … She has not identified any clearly established law to suggest otherwise.

Christine McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company

9 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 15, 1993

S.Ct 263 , 121 L.Ed.2d 193 (1992) ("Even though plaintiff's failure to complete the application truthfully was discovered post-termination, he is not entitled to handicap discrimination relief when he was not initially qualified … Copying and removing confidential documents is clearly not protected conduct. 8 . We note, incidentally, that if Mrs.

William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor v. Louvers and Dampers, Inc. D/B/A Bel-Wood Country Club and Ted Stacy

817 F.2d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 1987

must be open to the general public to qualify for the exemption. 29 C.F.R. §§ 779.318 , 779.319. … The purpose of the seasonal amusement or recreational establishment exemption was not clearly spelled out in the legislative history of either the 1961 or 1966 amendments.