Case law

Grand Rapids Store Equipment Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

59 F.2d 914 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 1932

Under such circumstances the doterminafion here depends solely upon whether the finding of the Board is supported by any substantial evidence. Tracy v. Commissioner, 53 F.(2d) 575 (C. C. A. 6); Uncasville Mfg. Co. v. … Ed. 184 ], and the court being under no obligation to reweigh tho evidence [Refling v. Burnet, Commissioner, 47 F.(2d) 859 (C. C. A. 8)], the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.

Benesch v. Underwood

132 F.2d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 17, 1942

In Rase v. … On the contrary, the record reveals scrupulous and proper official conduct on the part of both the Local Board and the Board of Appeals. Ver Mehren v.

McCall v. Scott

239 F.3d 808 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2001

See Harris v. … Inaction by the Board will not excuse the failure to make a demand because it would deprive the Board of the opportunity to be “prodded” into action, which is a fundamental goal of the demand requirement. See Stepak v.

Marina Debity v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

134 F.4th 389 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 2, 2025

For its part, the Board relies heavily on Freeman v. Chicago Park District, 189 F.3d 613 (7th Cir. 1999) to support its claim that the questions here are special verdicts. … Yet, it also found  No. 24-5137 Debity v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ. Page 14 that the Board proved its affirmative defense.

Wee Care Child Center, Inc. v. Lumpkin

680 F.3d 841 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 27, 2012

In Wee Care IV, Wee Care and Brown named sixteen employees of ODJFS and FCDJFS as defendants. An amended complaint named eleven ODJFS employees (“State No. 10-4160 Wee Care Child Center, et al. v. … In Thomson v.

Alexander Grigorievich Uritsky v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General

399 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 7, 2005

INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424-25 , 119 S.Ct. 1439 , 143 L.Ed.2d 590 (1999). … The distinction drawn by the Board has a “rational basis,” which is all that is required for it to pass constitutional muster. Ashki v. INS, 233 F.3d 913, 920 (6th Cir.2000).

Shelby County Health Care Corporation v. Southern Council of Industrial Workers Health and Welfare Trust Fund,defendant-Appellant, Tracy Mason

203 F.3d 926 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 15, 2000

See Smith v. … The Fund cites to Bali v.

Gonzales v. United States

212 F.2d 71 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 1954

A review of the documentary evidence appearing in appellant’s file and which was before the draft board and the appeal board for consideration, reveals, in the opinion of this court, that the appeal board did have a basis … United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1 , 73 S.Ct. 991 , 97 L.Ed. 1417 ; Bejelis v. United States, 6 Cir., 206 F.2d 354 ; Imboden v. United States, 6 Cir., 194 F.2d 508 .

Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co.

94 F.2d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 15, 1937

Louis Railway v. … McNulty v. National Mediation Board et al., D.C.N.Y., 18 F.Supp. 494 ; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Mediation Board, 66 App.D.C. 375 , 88 F.2d 757 .

United States v. Blair-Torbett

230 F. App'x 483 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 2007

United States v. Brown, 444 F.3d 519 (6th Cir.2006); United States v. Christopher, 415 F.3d 590 (6th Cir.2005). … Brown v. Marshall, 704 F.2d 333, 334 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 835 , 104 S.Ct. 120 , 78 L.Ed.2d 119 (1983).

Ronald A. Landefeld v. Marion General Hospital, Inc.

994 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 1993

See Push *1181 kin v. Regents of Univ. of Colorada, 658 F.2d 1372 , 1384 (10th Cir.1984); Doe v. New York Univ., 666 F.2d 761 , 774-75 (2d Cir.1981). See also Southeastern Community College v. … Canderm Pharmacal, Ltd. v. Elder Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 862 F.2d 597, 601 (6th Cir.1988). In Anderson v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Family Fare, Inc.

205 F. App'x 403 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2006

Standard of Review This Court’s scope of review of Board findings is well-established. Kux Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 890 F.2d 804, 808 (6th Cir. 1989). … N.L.R.B. v. Duriron Co., 978 F.2d 254, 256 (6th Cir. 1992).

Pablo-Sanchez v. Holder

600 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 2010

Because the Board “issue[d] a separate opinion, rather than summarily affirming” and adopting the IJ’s decision, we review the Board’s decision “as the final agency determination.” Khalili v. … The Board never announced any such rule. In full, its two-paragraph analysis of the past-persecution claim reads: No. 09-3301 Pablo-Sanchez et al. v.

NLRB v. Starbucks Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2025

NLRB v. Starbucks Corp., 125 F.4th 78, 95 (3d Cir. 2024) (“The NLRA therefore limits the Board’s remedial authority to equitable, not legal, relief.”); Hiran Mgmt., Inc. v. … Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 216 (1964) (citation omitted). The Board stretches that guidance too far.

Charles M. Hebestreit v. Robert Brown, Jr.

995 F.2d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 1993

HEBESTREIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert BROWN, Jr., et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-1798. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. … See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 531-33 (1984). Unlike the defendants in Zinermon v.

William Dwight Dotson v. Reginald A. Wilkinson, Rogerico Johnson v. Margarette Ghee

329 F.3d 463 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 2003

As support, in Footnote 1, the court cited Crow v. Penry, 102 F.3d at 1087 , and McGrow v. Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158,161 (5th Cir.1995). Id. The court contrasted the facts in Neal v. … Blake v.

Laurence Wolf Capital Management Trust v. City of Ferndale

61 F. App'x 204 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2003

Others hold that a zoning board must issue a decision setting forth the reasons for the decision and linking the reasons to record evidence. See, e.g., Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. … Smart SMR v. Zoning Comm’n of Stratford, 995 F.Supp. 52, 59 (D.Ct.1998); APT Minneapolis, Inc. v. Eau Claire County, 80 F.Supp.2d 1014, 1024 (W.D.Wi.1999).

Gibson v. Foltz

963 F.2d 851 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 4, 1992

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 , 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (quoting First National Bank of Arizona v. … Wilson v. Seiter, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2324 , 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 , 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399-2400 , 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)).

Ohio Power Co. v. N.L.R.B.

176 F.2d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 1949

This section is to be interpreted in the disjunctive, National Labor Relations Board v. Edward G. Budd, Mfg. … Cas.1917B, 1168; United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 287 U.S. 77, 83 , 53 S.Ct. 42 , 77 L.Ed. 175 ; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.

Gary Whitsel v. Southeast Local School District

484 F.2d 1222 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 25, 1973

Pickering v. … Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2694 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U.S. 551 , 76 S.Ct. 637 , 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956).