Case law

United States v. Rodney Southers

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 2017

To prevail under this standard, Defendant must establish “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” Johnson v. … to determine whether they necessarily establish the nature of the prior conviction.”

Reed v. Cleveland Board of Education

607 F.2d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 1979

Each district judge is provided at public expense with a staff which includes qualified law clerks. … The District Judge clearly had no intention to abdicate his judicial responsibility in this case.

Dayton Area Visually Impaired Persons, Inc. v. Fisher

70 F.3d 1474 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 16, 1995

Also, the registration and fee requirements are of a limited duration (two years), if the organization can prove its charitable nature by qualifying as a § 501(c)(3) entity for federal tax purposes. … Upon submission of documentation specified in the statute, the organization involved is automatically qualified to solicit funds.

United States v. Matthew Otis Charles

138 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 1998

STANDARD OF REVIEW This court reviews specific findings of fact made by the trial court under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Hernandez v. … The district court found that Charles met all three criteria and qualified as a career offender as a result of his multiple prior felony convictions.

Ohio State Conference of the National Ass'n v. Husted

768 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 24, 2014

At the least, the district court did not clearly err in so finding. … See also Holder, 512 U.S. at 881–82 (“It makes little sense to say . . . that the sole commissioner system should be subject to a [Section 2] dilution challenge if it is rare—but immune if it is common.”)

Mark Kroll v. United States of America and United States Postal Service

58 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 1995

Section 104 of Title 5 specifically exempts the USPS and the Postal Rate Commission from the definition of “independent establishment” for purposes of Title 5. 5 U.S.C. § 104 (1988). … Courts have noted that this section is not an appropriate provision on which to base jurisdiction, but is in fact purely a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Frazier Cunningham v. State of Mich. Dep't of State Police

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

Law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless two conditions are met: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right that the officer violated was clearly established at … Sonstrom is thus entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm. -5-

Foster v. United States

178 F. 165 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 1910

Justice) Day, that to permit a demand to be made on the defendant in a criminal case in the presence of the jury to produce a paper or document containing evidence against him is a violation of the immunity secured to him … It clearly appeared that it was impossible for the government to proeme the presence of the books upon the trial. A subpoena had been issued for their production, and served upon the receiver.

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.

Gary Bradford Cone v. Ricky Bell, Warden

359 F.3d 785 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2004

established” U.S. … We hold that this decision by the Tennessee Supreme Court was contrary to clearly established U.S.

WJW-TV, Inc. v. City of Cleveland

878 F.2d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 16, 1989

Nor does the Ohio Supreme Court’s disposition of Barnes on principles of state and municipal law immunize this appeal from mootness simply because the federal district court’s decision was predicated upon an alleged violation … McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 , 89 S.Ct. 1944, 1950 , 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969)); compare County of Oakland, 866 F.2d at 845 (“A dispute in which the interest of the complaining party is purely academic does not qualify as a case

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.

Glass v. Pineda

635 F. App'x 207 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 23, 2015

The Supreme Court has explained that “[a] state-court decision will certainly be contrary to our clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases,” … It is clearly established that a defendant seeking to represent himself “should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and

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.”

ABX Air, Inc. v. Airline Professionals Ass'n of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 1224

266 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2001

STANDARD OF REVIEW The district court’s “factual findings must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous.” Taylor and Gaskin v. Chris-Craft Indus., 732 F.2d 1273, 1277 (1984) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)). … Because there is no equivalent of the National Railroad Adjustment Board for the airline industry, 45 U.S.C. § 184 requires every carrier and its employees to establish an adjustment board by agreement.

Mickey Downie David Wheat v. City of Middleburg Heights, Richard P. Siegel Thomas Schneider

301 F.3d 688 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2002

that Counts I, II, and XI of Downie’s complaint did not rely on the retention or dissemination of the memo, the district court denied Siegel’s and Schneider’s motion to dismiss, finding also that they were not entitled to qualified … immunity.

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.

Local 670, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America v. International Union, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers

822 F.2d 613 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 1987

The agreement was framed as one involving “labor grade changes,” stating as follows: [I]n accordance with longstanding and clearly established practices by the parties and consistent with the Collective Bargaining Agreement … International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 , 103 S.Ct. 2281 , 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), that possibility was not clearly established.

Jennings v. Alexander

715 F.2d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 1983

Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of discrimination against the handicapped. … Yet such a wooden notion of access is clearly not what was intended by the enactment of section 504.

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.