Case law

United States v. Brimite

102 F. App'x 952 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2004

A selective prosecution claim clearly qualifies as such an objection. United States v. … This evidence is not sufficient to establish either discriminatory intent or effect. See United States v.

Turner v. Bagley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2005

The magistrate judge concluded that the right to a speedy appeal has not been established by a decision of the Supreme Court. … While this court has not endorsed this procedure, Turner has certainly been free to bring an action under § 1983, subject to defenses of absolute or qualified immunity, seeking redress from the appropriate defendants.

Ralph Pelton v. Alex Perdue

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 17, 2018

In the performance of discretionary functions, government officials are immune from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights. Harlow v. … To overcome a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established.

A. Matthew Buder v. Thomas E. Bell, Sheriff of Genesee County, Michigan

306 F.2d 71 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 27, 1962

We cannot say that a finding by the District Judge that this constituted “exceptional circumstances,” is clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion. … The Supreme Court has defined due process as follows: “Due process of law is a summarized constitutional guarantee of respect for those personal immunities which, as Mr.

Board of Trustees Ex Rel. Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Bucci

493 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2007

Neither the bankruptcy court nor the district court below addressed the issue of whether the employer contributions qualified as ERISA plan assets. … Traditionally, the “proper rule, developed by caselaw, is that unpaid employer contributions are not assets of a fund unless the agreement between the fund and the employer specifically and clearly declares otherwise.”

Denning Ex Rel. Denning v. Metropolitan Government

330 F. App'x 500 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2009

immunity see his badge that night. … Finally, plaintiffs claimed that Officer Davidson was not entitled to qualified immunity because he used force that was excessive under objective standards of reasonableness.

United States v. Anita Green

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2026

The Government bears the burden of establishing restitution by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Fike, 140 F.4th 351, 357 (6th Cir. 2025). … Hovanec argues that this characterization was clearly erroneous because the report stated that Dr.

Thrower v. Kovein

991 F.2d 796 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 1993

Summary judgement is warranted in such a situation. 11 Additionally, Detective Kovein is entitled to qualified immunity. … Briggs, 475 U.S. 355, 341 (1986) (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law).

Newman J. Finley v. Baker Material Handling Corporation

14 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 1994

This means that the plaintiff must establish: 10 1) that he was a member of the protected class (i.e. over age 40); 11 2) that he was discharged; 12 3) that he was qualified for the position; and 13 4) that he was replaced … A different result would allow every person age 40-and-over to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination if he or she was discharged as part of a work force reduction. 1 17 The situation in this case clearly is a

Blair v. Meade

107 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 1997

The district court appropriately denied Meade's motions for absolute and qualified immunity at this preliminary stage. 36 "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity," which "shields … "When a court determines whether qualified immunity exists, it must first ask 'whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all,' " and only then proceed to determine whether the right was clearly

Lora Bryant, Jr. v. James Harris, James Enix, and Joseph Brennan

985 F.2d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 1993

II. 12 Qualified immunity may be invoked by a government official as a defense to suit if that official's conduct "does not violate clearly established federal 'statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, qualified immunity is available to defendants

Cross Mountain Coal, Inc. v. Alvin Ward Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

93 F.3d 211 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 25, 1996

Claimant worked in qualifying coal mine employment for 17 and one-third years. … Baker’s opinion clearly satisfied the Adams standard in that it establishes that claimant was totally disabled “at least in part” due to pneumoconio-sis. 886 F.2d at 825 . III.

United States v. John A. Rapanos Judith A. Nelkie Rapanos Prodo, Inc. Rolling Meadows Hunt Club Pine River Bluff Estates, Inc.

376 F.3d 629 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 26, 2004

The Fifth Circuit requires that the non-navigable water be “truly adjacent to navigable waters” in order to qualify for CWA jurisdiction. … While the CWA grants states the authority to establish their own clean water regulations, Congress clearly intended for any state program to be at least as broad as the federal program.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Bates

42 F.3d 369 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 1995

The statutory language governs our interpretation unless clearly expressed, contrary legislative intent exists. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 , 110 S.Ct. 1570 , 108 L.Ed.2d 842 (1990). … The FDIC argues that had Congress wanted to limit their right to proceed under the federal common law, it would have qualified the savings clause in an explicit manner.

Poundstone v. Patriot Coal Co.

485 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 10, 2007

This payment qualified as “other monetary consideration” pursuant to paragraph 4(b), entitling Plaintiffs to a portion of the proceeds. … ) for coal sales (among other things), establishing that the contingent benefits were intended to continue after the assignment of the lease.

Gary Harris v. Dennis E. Muchnicki

101 F.3d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 14, 1996

On appeal, Harris argues that the defendant's actions are not protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity and do not meet the standard for qualified immunity. 4 Upon careful consideration, we affirm the district court's … Thus, they were protected, if at all, only by qualified immunity. 7 This court and others have recognized that " '[d]rawing a proper line between these functions may present difficult questions....' " Grant, 870 F.2d at 1137

Village of Grafton Kng, Ltd. v. Rural Lorain County Water Authority

419 F.3d 562 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2005

To establish that it is entitled to protection under § 1926(b), RLCWA must show that: “(1) it is an ‘association’ within the meaning of the Act; (2) it has a qualifying outstanding [RECDS] loan obligation; and (3) it has … In this case, the parties do not dispute that RLCWA is a qualified “association” that has been indebted to RECDS since January 2002.

McLeod v. Parsons Corp.

73 F. App'x 846 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 5, 2003

During the trial, Parsons’s witnesses alleged that the position Grubb held was not the same position that McLeod formerly held, and that McLeod was not qualified for this position. … An abuse of discretion exists only when the district court “ ‘relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact or when it improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard.’ ” U.S. v.

Clarence Carter v. Betty Mitchell, Warden

443 F.3d 517 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 2006

We now examine whether this conclusion was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. A. … Accordingly, we cannot say that the decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals was “contrary to” clearly established federal law. *537 Nor was the state court’s decision an “unreasonable application of’ clearly-established federal

In Re: Sami Yousif, Debtor. Todd M. Halbert v. Sami Yousif Sana Yousif Florence Tanners, Incorporated,defendants-Appellees

201 F.3d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 20, 2000

The Bankruptcy Court also failed to set forth on the record the basis for this alleged violation while at the same time being unable to establish the date on which the alleged agreement was entered. Cf. … In an attempt to "establish[ ] a much-needed, bright-line test for determining finality [and] providing certainty for litigants," we have held that a bankruptcy appeal is not final unless the district court complies with