Case law

Gordon v. United States

164 F.2d 855 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 8, 1947

Appellee urges that reports of thefts of jewelry stock are necessarily made in the systematic conduct of the jewelry business and that the letter was thus clearly admissible. … A qualified expert testified that the value of the jewelrj *859 to the ultimate consumer was approximately $15,000, and thus completed this phase of the proof. Cf. United States v. Garvey, 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 767 .

United States v. William Aubrey Thompson, Thomas Edward Sisk, Charles Frederick Taylor

669 F.2d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 1982

It is the purpose of this Act to seek the eradication of organized crime in the United States by strengthening the legal tools in the evidence-gathering process, by establishing new penal prohibitions, and by providing enhanced … Congressional debates clearly indicate that what was considered important and novel in Title IX was the provision of new remedies for dealing with organized crime. See Remarks of Sen.

Intermet Corporation & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

209 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 2000

authority to prescribe regulations as he may deem necessary in order that the tax liability of any affiliated group of corporations ... may be returned, determined, computed, assessed, collected, and adjusted, in such manner as clearly … They do establish a default rule that “[t]he Internal Revenue Code, or other law, shall be applicable to the group to the extent the regulations do not exclude its application.” Treas.

Tennessee Protection & Advocacy, Inc. v. Jon A. Wells, Esquire Ronald Bruce Arrison and King's Daughters & Sons Nursing Home, Inc.

371 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 2004

Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.1998) (observing that when “the meaning of a word is clearly explained in a statute, courts are not at liberty to look beyond the statutory definition”). … In adjudicating disability claims, we must respect the eligibility requirements established by Congress.

Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturing Mutual Insurance

53 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 17, 1995

This definition is the center of controversy due to the “buffer layer” established in the policy. … If we find in favor of Babcock, the record clearly indicates they have paid more than $2.5 million.

Arturo Velasco-Tijero v. Loretta E. Lynch

796 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2015

AEDPA § 435(b) clearly makes commencement of removal proceedings—not some other date—the key point for ascertaining whether an alien’s conviction is subject to AEDPA-amended 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2). … AEDPA § 435 pertains only to what qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude. See supra n.1. AEDPA § 435 did not apply in St. Cyr because St.

Cope v. Gateway Area Development District, Inc.

624 F. App'x 398 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 2015

Anderson filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Cope’s complaint merely stated conclusory allegations; that Anderson was protected by sovereign immunity and qualified … Anderson argues alternatively that she is entitled to immunity. Cope responds that the Kentucky legislature waived immunity when it implemented the Whistleblower Act. Reply Br. at 11.

37712, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Liquor Control and Michael A. Akrouche

113 F.3d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 16, 1997

Establishments that sell alcohol for on-premises consumption and those that sell alcohol for off-premises consumption are subject to different, legitimate public interest concerns, as are establishments which sell alcohol … The Code permits the following issues to appear on a local ballot regarding beer sales: (B) The following questions regarding the sale of beer by holders of C or D permits may be presented to the qualified electors of an

Estate of Dustin Barnwell v. Mitchell Grigsby

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 21, 2020

Further, the law is clear that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, regardless of the alleged factual dispute. … That is to say, the officers acted in a law-enforcement capacity and were thus not entitled to qualified immunity.

Greene v. City of Memphis

610 F.2d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 1979

I think if you ever wanted to create a monument to increased hostility, you would do that and that would serve as a magnet to bring people to a street to demonstrate very clearly that that is evidence of people being able … “The legislative history of the 1866 Act clearly indicates that Congress intended to protect a limited category of rights,, specifically defined in terms of racial equality.” George v.

Brian Palmer v. Bill Schuette

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 2019

They contended that the Eleventh Amendment precluded any official capacity claims, that they were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to individual capacity claims, and that they were entitled to immunity with … not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. S-W Industries, Inc.

23 F.3d 970 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 7, 1994

Ohio’s workers compensation scheme provides no immunity for an employer’s intentional torts against its employees. … Blankenship did not “invent” or “recognize” a cause of action or “revoke” any employer’s immunity, as the appellee-insurers contend.

25 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1750, 26 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,876 Martha Frances Franks, Martha Ann Thweatt, Plaintiffs-Movant v. The Kroger Company

649 F.2d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 1981

Given the fact that the record reflects that the district judge was clearly aware of the problem of placing a greater burden on the class than required by law, I am simply unable to interpret the settlement agreement ultimately … the request, and any reasons given for the denial; (4) the name of the employee awarded the training or promotion in question and the approximate date of the award; (5) the class member’s basis for claiming that she was qualified

Thomas v. Cohen

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 31, 2006

immunity. … A divided panel of this court concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim, but that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the

Nancy Dickenson, Conservator for Sandra Robinson v. Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery of Eastern Tennessee, P.C. And Robert Rosser, M.D.

388 F.3d 976 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 25, 2004

In fact, “the text of Rule 702 expressly contemplates that an expert may be qualified on the basis of experience.” … In this case, however, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that Dr. Michalik called upon Dr. Rosser to “assume that responsibility” and “it was Dr. Rosser who ordered the extubation of the tube.”

Peabody Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

48 F. App'x 140 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 2002

Beside the fact that the Board’s interpretation is clearly inapposite to the plain language of the statute, such a rule would render the statute of limitations essentially useless. … If the miner establishes the existence of that element, he has demonstrated as a matter of law, a material change.

Homemakers Home And Health Care Services, Inc. v. Carden

538 F.2d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 17, 1976

Thus, as both parties concede, the only issue left before the District Court was whether Homemakers qualified as a "retail or service establishment" as defined in the Section 13(a)(2) exemption. 9 Following a non-jury trial … Although not everyone will be in need of its services, clearly Homemakers does attend to "everyday needs of the community."

Derek Kramer v. Am. Electric Power Exec. Severance Plan

128 F.4th 739 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 10, 2025

It does not establish (nor could it) that courts must read every Internal Revenue Code provision and Treasury regulation into ERISA. … Because the Plan qualifies as a top-hat plan, the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege does not apply.

Sanders v. City of Flatwoods, Ky.

935 F.2d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 11, 1991

McCollan nor the doctrine of qualified immunity entitles Officer Leonhart to judgment as a matter of law. We agree. 9 * Baker v. … B 14 As to the question of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court's decision in Harlow v.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Russell D. Conger

474 F.3d 258 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 16, 2007

The Act gave the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) the responsibility to enter into group contracts (known as “master contracts”) with qualified insurance carriers, and thereby establish and administer a program through … Instead, the LTCSA merely “establishes minimal underwriting standards for master contracts, and delegates the establishment of further underwriting requirements to the qualified carriers and OPM.” Id.