Case law

The Upjohn Company v. Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, and Herbert L. Ley, Jr., Commissioner of Food and Drugs

422 F.2d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 1970

Upjohn contends that “the totality of materials, which include these 54 articles, the material submitted to the FDA over the years since these products were certified, and the clinical experience in totality clearly satisfy … When it clearly appears from the data incorporated into or referred to by the objections and from the factual analysis in the request for a hearing that there is no genuine issue of fact which precludes the action taken on

Kentucky Association of Health Plans, Inc. Advantage Care, Inc. Aetna Health Plans of Ohio, Inc. Choicecare Health Plans, Inc. Fhp of Ohio, Inc. Hmpk, Inc. Hplan, Inc. Humana Health Plan, Inc. v. George Nichols, Iii, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Insurance,defendant-Appellee

227 F.3d 352 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2000

This is acknowledged by the defendant: The statutes establish that health insurers, which assume financial risk, cannot discriminate against qualified providers. … Stuart Circle involved a Virginia statute which required insurers to accept any willing provider if they established preferred provider networks.

Dakota Girls, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co.

17 F.4th 645 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2021

Under our circuit’s view of Ohio law, then, the preschools cannot establish the “loss” or “damage” required to trigger the first three coverages. … We reject ordinary meaning only when it would create absurdity or when the parties clearly intended some other definition. Id. at 34; see also Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) v.

United States v. Majeed Bazazpour

690 F.3d 796 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2012

However, some of the incidents upon which the district court relied to enhance Bazazpour’s sentence do not qualify under the Guidelines’ obstruction-of-justice adjustment. … Nevertheless, not every false statement made by a criminal defendant at trial necessarily qualifies as perjury.

Vicki Steiner v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service

354 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 8, 2003

“In permitting federal employees to sue under Title VII, Congress conditioned the government’s waiver *435 of sovereign immunity upon a plaintiffs satisfaction of ‘rigorous administrative exhaustion requirements and time … Publication 552,” entitled “Manager’s Guide to Understanding Sexual Harassment,” to her memorandum in opposition to the USPS’s motion to dismiss below. 1 On page ten of that publication, the forty-five day filing requirement is clearly

Roger Wheeler v. Thomas Simpson

779 F.3d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2015

Kovatch’s demeanor supports that he was Witt—qualified to serve on Wheeler’s jury. … An unreasonable application of clearly established federal law occurs where a state court accurately identifies the governing legal rule *375 but applies it in an unreasonable manner to the facts of the case before it.

Great Lakes Explor v. Unidentified Wreck

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

In an in rem admiralty action, the arrest of a shipwreck is the procedure by which a salvor establishes jurisdiction in federal court. … Fed. 421 § 2b (2000) (noting that no court “has analyzed what is required to establish that wreckage is ‘embedded.’

Can-Am Engineering Company v. Henderson Glass, Inc.

814 F.2d 253 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 16, 1987

The seven-sided hub was clearly visible, however. … Clearly there was no error in Judge Freeman’s proceeding in this manner. III. We now turn to the substantive issues raised in this appeal.

Graham A. Peters v. The Lincoln Electric Company

285 F.3d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2002

Peters’ testimony clearly showed that he was claiming Defendant wrongfully denied him continued participation in SERP in “breach of its promises and representations.” … I should again point out that I believe you will not qualify for continued participation, however, we will not know until the study is completed.

Gary Grant v. Drew Wilson

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2022

The court then held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law. … Excessive Force1 The officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim because the administrator of Grant’s estate cannot establish a clearly established violation of a constitutional right

Estate of Beunos Lee Erwin v. Greene Cnty., Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 2021

Greene County excessive force and additionally invokes a defense of qualified immunity. … We thus need not address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, whether Lt. Jones’ actions were contrary to clearly established law. See, e.g., Chappell v.

Genesis Hill v. Betty Mitchell

842 F.3d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 1, 2016

established Supreme Court precedent. … I would also conclude that this evidence qualifies as “material” for Brady purposes.

James White, Cross-Appellant v. Colgan Electric Co., Inc., Cross-Appellee

781 F.2d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 29, 1986

The record clearly establishes that if there was a minority requirement on a federally subsidized job, then the decision to lay off or retain a minority under such circumstances would be that of management. … Therefore, in my view, under the clearly erroneous standard of review, the district court’s findings of discrimination are not clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

Ronald Jeffrey Kiphart v. Saturn Corporation

251 F.3d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 2001

When, as here, a plaintiff presents direct evidence his employer relied on his disability in making an employment decision, he bears the burden of establishing (1) he is “disabled” and (2) he is “otherwise qualified” for … For example, certain job announcements clearly stated the ability to fully rotate was a necessary qualification.

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Bredesen

500 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 2007

As an initial matter, equal protection is not one of those substantive areas of the law where, as in the case of qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or federal habeas corpus under AEDPA, the degree to which Supreme … Court precedent is “clearly established” determines the likelihood of relief.

Govindbhai Patel v. Loretta Lynch

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2016

that he entered without inspection to establish his eligibility for adjustment of status under INA § 245(i). … she is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted to the United States and is not inadmissible as charged.”

Lori McColman v. St. Clair County

479 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2012

immunity. … The court also concluded that even if Doan’s use of force was objectively unreasonable, he was entitled to qualified immunity. 9  The district court’s analysis is

Rolfe v. County Board of Education of Lincoln County

391 F.2d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 1968

It is established by the record and was found by the district court: The appellees, Mrs. Rolfe and Mrs. … Certainly, the amount fixed is not clearly erroneous.

Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Copper Range Railroad

355 F.2d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 21, 1966

As we read the Clement and the Mc-lver cases, they do not establish an unqualified right for a ship to proceed on the assumption that a drawbridge will open on signal. … It is clear, however, that in the instant case the qualified presumption that the bridge would open on signal was more sharply limited by different facts.

F. Dale Rowland Denise Rowland v. United States Department of Agriculture

43 F.3d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 1995

Before the horse was admitted into the exhibition ring, the Designated Qualified Person (“DQP”), inspected the horse to detect whether it had been sored. … There is no dispute that the horse exhibited no sensitivity to palpation despite the existence of sufficient evidence establishing that the scars were caused by soring.