Case law

Compton v. Deskins

848 F.2d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 1988

PER CURIAM. 1 Defendants, law enforcement officers, appeal the judgment of a United States Magistrate that denied their claim of qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. … However, the magistrate found that the search of the skating rink at the time of the arrest, including a private office, was a violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which defendants should have known.

Rosetta Brock v. Ned Ray McWherter

94 F.3d 242 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 1996

Facts Under Tennessee’s Workers’ Compensation Law, a partially and permanently disabled employee who becomes totally and permanently disabled due to a subsequent work-related injury, qualifies for workers’ compensation. … Hence, § 50-6-401(b) (which is repeated with no substantive change at § 50-6-208(c)) clearly contemplates that the normal budgetary and appropriations process will determine how much of the premium tax will be deposited in

Chotin Transportation, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. United States of America, Cross-Appellant

784 F.2d 206 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 1986

The pilothouse shall be attended by qualified personnel during the entire locking procedure. … We believe these results would clearly be inequitable. As to 33 U.S.C.

Miskel v. Karnes

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 2005

As debatable as Vega may be,6 we conclude that its application in Petitioner’s case was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. A. … Under AEDPA, if there is no “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court” that supports a habeas petitioner’s legal argument, the argument must fail.

Local Division 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Jackson Transit Authority

650 F.2d 1379 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 3, 1981

The Union plainly meets the standard established in Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. … I do not think there would be any great wrong done if we simply said to a State “You do not .qualify for this Federal grant.”

United States v. James Wooten

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 2012

Thus, we have clearly established that the statement “I have a gun” can constitute a No. 11-5348 United States v. … We express no disagreement with the established law in either this circuit or our sister circuits.

United States v. Gregory Steven Horn

355 F.3d 610 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 20, 2004

“The fact that judgment was pronounced on the same day with sentences to run concurrently, without more, does not establish that [the cases] were in fact consolidated.” … Brown, 209 F.3d 1020, 1024 (7th Cir.2000) (“merely similar, seriatim robberies fall short of qualifying as a ‘single common scheme or plan’ ”).

United States v. Melvin Skinner

690 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 14, 2012

This information was used to establish Skinner’s location as he transported drugs along public thoroughfares between Arizona and Tennessee. … See Campbell, 279 F.3d at 396 (stating clearly erroneous standard for factual determinations).

Stoll v. Western & Southern Life Insurance

64 F. App'x 986 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2003

Id. at 901 . *991 ERISA establishes several requirements for the handling of benefits claims. … time for those who leave before qualifying but later return.

David Marshall v. City of Farmington Hills

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2017

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from civil liability if their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Governmental immunity for intentional torts under Michigan law is distinct from federal qualified immunity.

Tracy D. Fisher v. F. Whitten Peters, Acting Secretary of the United States Air Force

249 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2001

Lt Col Wade selected a male candidate who Plaintiff described as “far less qualified” than her. … The evaluation concluded that despite this disorder Brown was qualified for worldwide duty. Id.

Ronald Dean Combs v. Ralph Coyle

205 F.3d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2000

This instruction was clearly improper under Ohio law. In Ohio v. … Even today, it is not clear that the Zuern rule would qualify as a firmly established state procedural rule.

Hamiltons Bogarts v. MI

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2007

“‘The district court’s determination will be disturbed only if the district court relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard.’” Id. … Accordingly, we now hold that the Twenty-first Amendment does not qualify the constitutional prohibition against laws abridging the freedom of speech embodied in the First Amendment.”); see also Odle v.

Cobb v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

185 F.2d 255 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 1950

This test imposes upon us the duty of careful scrutiny of the record to determine whether or not such findings are clearly erroneous. … In 1937, Ida began riding horses and, in 1941, and subsequent years took lessons to qualify her to show saddle horses in competition.

John Pinter v. George C. Young, Bernard B. Hurst, State of Ohio, Department of Transportation

943 F.2d 52 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 1991

Appellant Hurst separately urged that he was immune from section 1983 liability because he had not participated in the denial of any process due Pinter. 3 State officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from liability … for civil damages if a reasonable person acting under similar circumstances knew or should have known that his or her conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Tucker v. Palmer

541 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2008

Relatedly, the R & R recommended that the District Court find that the state trial court’s conviction of Tucker “involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.” (JA at 108.) … “When assessing unreasonableness, ‘a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law

Marvin Nicholson v. United States

78 F.4th 870 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

When a district court denies such a motion (as the court did here), we review legal issues de novo and uphold the court’s “factual findings . . . unless they are clearly erroneous.” Jefferson v. … To get relief, § 2255 petitioners must establish that a trial error “resulted in ‘actual prejudice.’” Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637.

American Federation Of Government Employees v. William J. Clinton

180 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 1999

Here, on the contrary, any benefit loss results most clearly from the unchallengeable and unchallenged decision to close bases. … Otherwise, reassigned core workload is to be competed under § 2469(a)(1), and non-core workload under § 2469(a)(2) 2 Hill also would have problems establishing prudential standing, since its claims clearly involve " 'abstract

Lorrie Thompson v. Bank of America, N.A.

773 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 2014

At most, BOA informed Thompson that she might qualify. … Clearly, this requires the plaintiff to identify the employee and explain what the employee did that negligently injured the plaintiff.

Michael Blackard and Sharon Blackard, Both Individually and as Parents, Legal Guardians and Next Friends for Ashley Blackard, a Minor v. Memphis Area Medical Center for Women, Inc. Fazel Manejwala, M.D.

262 F.3d 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2001

The district court's finding that the Tennessee juvenile courts were in active concert with the ADC was not clearly erroneous. … This argument clearly misses the point. The district court's ruling did not hold that Plaintiffs or Defendants were enjoined by the injunction.