Case law

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.

The Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Comm. of Ohio

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 2013

Second, Section 251(b) imposes more extensive duties on carriers that qualify as “local exchange carriers.” … Here, were AT&T not an incumbent carrier subject to Section 251(c) and, instead, were a less-established carrier, the issue would be easy: the Commission clearly would have the authority under Section 251(a) to order interconnection

Chavez v. Carranza

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 17, 2009

Carranza Page 6 when a defendant has immunity from suit. … Likewise, if Carranza were living in El Salvador, he would likely be immune from suit.

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.

Jeffrey D. Hill v. Betty Mitchell, Warden

400 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 8, 2005

Under these circumstances, the Ohio ruling was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. F. … In the final analysis, the Ohio Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in rejecting this claim. G.

Gary Carr v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

363 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 14, 2004

It determined that Carr was not eligible for benefits because he did not qualify under the definition of Total Disability when he ceased being a full time employee on June 27, 1999. … Carr has failed to establish the elements of an estoppel claim, in particular that he detrimentally and justifiably relied on actions or representations of Reliance. See Trustees of the Mich.

Hildebrand v. Fortis Benefits Insurance

70 F. App'x 798 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 11, 2003

Campbell also clearly suffers from depression. Indeed, the district court made this finding even under the more medically precise terminology of the DSM-IV. … Finally, the court found that Campbell had failed to establish that his depression was etiologically linked to his hypothyroidism.

United States v. Ross Allen Doherty

126 F.3d 769 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 30, 1997

if the suspect requests counsel in the custodial interrogation “sufficiently clearly.” … As to the federal agents, the deliberate coercion of a confession would certainly be a violation of the Fifth Amendment under clearly established law. See White v.

Bay Medical Center, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

588 F.2d 1174 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 28, 1978

The instant case, in our view, qualifies as such an exception. Thus, we find, for the reasons set forth below, that in this case it would be error to include LPN’s in the technical unit found appropriate above. … While the committee clearly intends that the Board give due consideration to its admonition to avoid an undue proliferation of units in the health care industry, it did not within this framework intend to preclude the Board

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

Grundy Mining v. Flynn

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 23, 2003

another non-qualifying pulmonary function study, as well as another non-qualifying blood gas study. … This clearly provided the impetus for both Lisa Lee Mines and Lovinia to reject the interpretation of Sharondale’s final paragraph that the majority now suggests.

Kelli Ann Grabow v. Macomb Cnty.

580 F. App'x 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2014

immunity analysis. … For municipal liability, there must be an underlying unconstitutional act due to a policy or custom of the municipality, even if an officer in his or her individual capacity can avoid liability through qualified immunity.

Kevin Murtaugh v. Harlan Edmonson, John Rees and Linda Payne

815 F.2d 79 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 27, 1987

The Qualified Good Faith Immunity Issue 17 The Supreme Court in Harrow V. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), stated: 18 [G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

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

Coalition for Government Procurement v. Federal Prison Industries, Inc.

365 F.3d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2004

establishments of the Federal Government.” … The Coalition alleges that the APA expressly waives UNICOR’s purported sovereign immunity.

Gragg v. Somerset Tech

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2004

It is also undisputed that regional educational consultant positions; the other regions she was qualified to perform her former job of regional only had one each. … Moreover, even assuming that Gragg had established a C.

Carole J. Southerland v. Hardaway Management Company, Inc.

41 F.3d 250 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 12, 1995

Meadows, 666 S.W.2d 730 (Ky.1983), that there is an exception to Kentucky’s rule that an at-will employee may be discharged for good or bad cause, or no cause at all, when the discharge violates a clearly established public … Southerland’s documentary and deposition evidence do not establish the elements of a retaliation claim.

Westwood Chemical Co., Inc. v. Richard W. Kulick, Arthur Fletcher, and Lenape Chemicals, Inc., Garry B. Curtiss and Joseph Drasner, Movants-Appellees

656 F.2d 1224 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 1981

Although there may have previously been some doubt, it is now clearly established that res judicata can also be raised by motion. Hadden v. … Both rules are qualified or rejected when their application would contravene an overriding public policy or result in manifest injustice.” Tipler v. E.

Patrick Devlin v. Richard Kalm

493 F. App'x 678 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2012

immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity. … In their motion, Defendants sought dismissal of Count I and Count III of Plaintiff’s complaint based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, qualified immunity, lack of standing, Burford and Colorado River abstention, failure to

United States v. James Mathis

738 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 23, 2013

There’s not a safe level of asbestos exposure that’s been established. … It was not clearly erroneous for the district court to deny Mathis a mitigating-role reduction.