Case law

United States Ex Rel. Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

816 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 14, 2016

A claimant may establish eligibility to bring a qui tam lawsuit on one of two grounds: (1) that the factual premise of its claim was not publicly disclosed before it filed the lawsuit, or (2) even if it was, that the claimant … Unless Congress has “clearly state[d]” that a rule is jurisdictional, the Supreme Court has said, “courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character.” Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 133 S.

Taunt v. General Retirement System of Detroit (In re Wilcox)

233 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2000

The Supreme Court has thus clearly indicated that state law other than spendthrift trust law can serve as “enforceable nonbankruptcy law” under § 541(c)(2). … Anti-alienation provisions clearly meet this test, and the bankruptcy trustee does not contend otherwise.

Burkhart v. Randles

764 F.2d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 18, 1985

The plaintiffs contended that they received no response to this request. 5 The pleadings and evidence submitted by the defendants disputed, but did not clearly refute the plaintiffs’ case as described above. … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Parrett v. Southeastern Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc.

155 F. App'x 188 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 15, 2005

Given that Southeastern is clearly not entitled to sovereign immunity, as discussed below, we find it unnecessary to settle the question of what test for sovereign immunity should apply in this Circuit. … This level of federal funding, though not insignificant, does not establish that Southeastern is an arm of the federal government.

Le-Ax Water District v. City of Athens, Ohio

346 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 2003

In order to state a claim under § 1926(b), a plaintiff must establish “that 1) it is an ‘association’ within the meaning of the Act; 2) it has a qualifying outstanding FmHA loan obligation; and 3) it has provided or made … case, Le-Ax has clearly satisfied both of these requirements.

United States v. Jackson

70 F. App'x 844 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

In short, the credible proof in this case established that Matthews voluntarily gave consent to search the residence. The motion to suppress was properly denied on this basis as well. III. … I further understand that my consent is voluntarily given, with the right to refuse, and without any threats, coercion or promises of immunity by officers(s) of the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office.

Glen Naghtin v. Montague Fire District Board

674 F. App'x 475 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 2016

immunity. … Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, (1968)), and because Chief Roesler was entitled to qualified immunity. Naghtin brings this timely appeal.

United States v. Daniel Sexton

894 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 5, 2018

“There can . . . be more than one person who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy.” USSG § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. … “In calculating restitution, ‘the loss caused by the conduct underlying the offense of conviction establishes the outer limits of a restitution order.’” Id. (quoting Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 420 (1990)).

Jerry Stafford v. Rick Hallock

933 F.2d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 17, 1991

immunity. … , thus precluding a grant of qualified immunity.

Gabriel Alvarado v. Pamela Bondi

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 27, 2026

Whether the “established facts satisfy the statutory . . . standard” of exceptional-and-extremely-unusual hardship to a qualifying relative is “subject to judicial review” because it is “a mixed question of law and fact … This isolated Appointment Notice is clearly insufficient to establish that Alvarado filed an application for cancellation of removal in 2015, it was not considered by the IJ, and this document remains immaterial to our

United States v. Ali

38 F. App'x 220 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2002

According to the defense’s argument, such evidence purported to be expert opinion, but Vogt was not qualified, at the time of his testimony, to be anything other than a fact witness. … Even conceding that error was committed in propounding the objectionable question, moreover, such error was clearly harmless under the facts of this case.

Carol Conklin v. Leo E. Lovely Joe W. Wakeley and John Huss

834 F.2d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 3, 1987

The defendants argue this ruling prohibited them from establishing a failure to mitigate damages. … We also note that in a long and complicated law suit ... only a portion of the time expended can be reasonably regarded as contingent; once liability is established the attorney is assured of compensation for establishing

United States v. Ford

344 F. App'x 167 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 2009

This payment also established a basis for the enhancement under § 2C1.1(b)(1). … The payments made to Ford were made in a manner to clearly influence more than one event. The evidence establishes that each payment was accomplished by another action by Ford in his authority as a state senator.

Toni Stahl v. Coshocton Cty.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 31, 2018

This court has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity in these terms: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly … We therefore affirm the grant of qualified immunity to Deputy Snyder with respect to his use of deadly force.

Donnita Carmichael v. City of Cleveland

571 F. App'x 426 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2014

immunity for political subdivisions and their employees. … available at common law or established by the Revised Code.”

Feterle v. Chowdhury

148 F. App'x 524 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 2005

Chowdhury claim against Chowdhury in his individual capacity, Chowdhury will be protected by qualified immunity “unless he knew or should have known that his conduct violated clearly established rights.” Dominque v. … We therefore need not reach the question of qualified immunity for Chowdhurry.

Johnson Ex Rel. Estate of Johnson v. Doodson Insurance Brokerage, LLC

793 F.3d 674 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 15, 2015

Page 6 explained above, this case falls clearly on the Fultz side of the line. There was no independent tort duty to comply with the contractual obligation to obtain the liability insurance at issue. … ], it would be established that [the agent] owed a duty to claimants.”

In Re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation

527 F.3d 517 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2008

First, the witness must be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R.Evid. 702. … If credited, therefore, Leitzinger’s testimony clearly established evidence of injury to the named Plaintiffs and the class as a whole, and measurable damages to the named Plaintiffs and the class as a whole....

Fair Housing Advocates Ass'n v. City of Richmond Heights

209 F.3d 626 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 13, 2000

that would qualify for the exemption, not the scrutiny to be Advocates Ass’n, 998 F. Supp. at 829. For example, Martin given after deciding that the exemption in fact applies. … The required to establish that the ordinances were unreasonable, ordinances are facially neutral and apply equally to families as opposed to requiring the Cities to establish that the and unrelated individuals

Philhall Corporation v. United States

546 F.2d 210 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 15, 1976

The crux of the problem here is whether the option to purchase the land in question qualifies as a capital asset within the meaning of § 1221 of the Internal Revenue Code. … Contemporaneous facts, not self-serving testimony given years later, are important in establishing intent. Raymond v. United States, supra, 511 F.2d at 190 .