Case law

Sigler v. Amer Honda Motor Co

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 8, 2008

Because our case law clearly prohibits considering such materials, and because Plaintiff-Appellant Shelly Sigler (“Sigler”) presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding … In Jackson, the Tennessee Supreme Court clearly stated that “we conclude that the consumer expectation test is applicable to any products liability case in which a party seeks to establish that a product is unreasonably dangerous

Michigan v. Jackson, L. & S. R.

69 F. 116 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 1895

The general doctrine of the immunity of the state for the unauthorized acts of its officials is clearly announced and firmly main *123 hiincd in the decisions of the supreme court of Michigan. Crane v. … The distinction established by these cases and the former, cited as supporting the general rule, is one which we approve as resting on solid grounds of public aud private justice and convenience.

Stupak-Thrall v. United States

89 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 1996

Although plaintiffs now argue on rehearing, for the first time, that sailboats have been used on the lake, occasional and recreational use of the type suggested by plaintiffs is clearly not enough to establish a taking. 6 … The foregoing approach adopts the prior panel’s recognition that plaintiffs’ riparian rights have never included the right to be immune from reasonable regulation.

Bob G. Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. Life Insurance Company of North America

150 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 1998

Russell, LINA notified Wilkins that he did not qualify for disability benefits under the Plan because he was not totally disabled. … In light of this comprehensive procedure, Wilkins’s contention that he was not afforded a full and fair review of the denial decision is clearly meritless.

Bridget Walker v. Detroit Public School District

535 F. App'x 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 2013

Establishing proximate cause is a high bar. … The Michigan Supreme Court has made clear that, under the immunity statute, “[t]he Legislature’s use of the definite article ‘the’ clearly evinces an intent to focus on one cause.

United States v. Jordie Callahan

801 F.3d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2015

B.E. was not immune from abuse—one of Hunt’s sons tied her up with rope and kept her bound all night because she tried to drink a soda that was not intended for her. Defendants also beat B.E. themselves. … In this case, Hunt used a fence post to beat S.E., which qualifies as a dangerous weapon under the circumstances.

Jeffrey Karttunen v. David Clark

369 F. App'x 705 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 16, 2010

The court also found that Clark “[did] not argue that he [wa]s entitled to qualified immunity even under [Karttunen’s] version of the facts” and, therefore, -3- No. 08-1 858 … CONCLUSION Because this appeal is clearly controlled by our decision in Schreiber, the same result must follow here.

In Re American Medical Systems, Inc. Pfizer, Inc.

75 F.3d 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 15, 1996

The superiority aspect of Rule 23(b)(3) also has not been established. … Plaintiffs respond that AMS' own representation to the FDA concerning the “substantial equivalence” of each model to the predicate models clearly establishes commonality. We disagree.

Steven Scozzari v. City of Clare

653 F. App'x 412 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 2016

Defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … The district court denied defendants qualified immunity, and this court affirmed its decision. Scozzari v. Miedzianowski, 454 F. App’x 455 (6th Cir. 2012).

Harris Stanley Coal & Land Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.

154 F.2d 450 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 1946

Failing to do so she was clearly estopped. We find there no resemblance whatsoever to the present case. … The first claim of the coal company is clearly barred by limitation.

Clemons v. Waller

82 F. App'x 436 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2003

immunity. … The Court held that no interception had occurred: “[TJhere was no tampering with the established means of communication. Indeed the officer was the immediate party to the call.

Dismas Charities, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons

401 F.3d 666 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 11, 2005

Second, although not formally relevant, the absence of competitor standing may render some agency actions effectively immune from judicial review. … Clearly, the memo simply determines what the law is, and does so by reliance upon a legal interpretation by the OLC.

Brandie Shayne Reist v. K. Orr P. Scavarda C. Smith D. Carl

67 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 5, 1995

immunity is also without merit. … Although this defense was asserted by the defendants, the district court did not base its judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Joshua Reece v. William Carey

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2023

Bailey and Waits assert that they are entitled to qualified official immunity. … Even though Waits and Bailey are not entitled to qualified official immunity, Reece still must prove their negligence.

Richards v. Carpenter

261 F. 724 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 1919

We express no opinion as to the earlier act, but we think that this section 554 so definitely deals with the liability sought to be enforced that upon the principles heretofore established it must be taken to affect its substance … What is said about the superintendent’s right to sue is perhaps a dictum, but his right to maintain such an action is clearly recognized ( 208 N. Y. 529 , 101 N.

United States v. Keith Pickett

941 F.2d 411 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 1991

Clearly none of Pickett’s three challenges fall under paragraphs (3) or (4) of subsection (a). … The Rule does not clarify which motions qualify as “specified pretrial motions” under the Rule.

Benefits Committee of Saint-Gobain Corp. v. Key Trust Co. of Ohio, N.A.

313 F.3d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 2002

Furon established the Furon ESOP on February 4, 1990. … A trust is established to hold the assets of the ESOP. 29 U.S.C. § 1103 (a).

Fruehauf Corporation, William E. Grace and Robert D. Rowan v. Internal Revenue Service

566 F.2d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 1977

In addition, § 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code was extensively amended by § 1202(a) of the TRA, effective January 1, 1977, to establish the general rule that “returns and return information shall be confidential” and not … No. 94-409, 90 Stat. 1241, 1247, which was effective March 13, 1977. 5 While this amendment narrowed the exemption, we conclude that revised § 6103 does qualify as an exemption three statute, entitling the Internal Revenue

John Collins v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

734 F.2d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 1984

“This is especially true because black lung often cannot be clearly diagnosed by either x-ray or other tests.”); Dickson v. … In the case of a living miner, a wife’s affidavit may not be used by itself to establish a presumption.

Commonwealth of Ky. v. Janet Yellen

67 F.4th 322 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 3, 2023

defining feature of our Nation’s constitutional blueprint,” id. at 283, the Supreme Court held this relief provision ambiguous and forbade future damages suits against states under the statute as violative of sovereign immunity … But a party is entitled to a permanent injunction like this only “if it can establish that it suffered a constitutional violation . . . .” Schmitt v.