Case law

Alder v. Tennessee Valley Authority

43 F. App'x 952 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2002

We note, however, that the plaintiffs are not without judicial review of an unfavorable Board decision. The CSRA provides for judicial review from final Board orders and decisions. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (a)(1). … Id. at 263-64 (citing McIntosh v. Turner, 861 F.2d 524, 526 (8th Cir.1988); Kotarski v. Cooper, 866 F.2d 311, 312 (9th Cir.1989); Brothers v. Custis, 886 F.2d 1282, 1284 (10th Cir.1989); Hill v.

Winn Avenue Warehouse, Inc. v. Winchester Tobacco Warehouse Co.

339 F.2d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 8, 1964

See opinion in Bale v. Glasgow Tobacco Board of Trade, Inc., 6 Cir., 339 F.2d 281 . … Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States, 246 U.S. 231 , 38 S.Ct. 242 , 62 L. Ed. 683 ; Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, 288 U.S. 344 , 53 S.Ct. 471 , 77 L.Ed. 825 ; Times-Picayune Publishing-Co. v.

Serrano v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.

790 F.2d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 8, 1986

In Engineers v. … In Belknap, Inc. v.

Stephen Kares v. Bryan Morrison

77 F.4th 411 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 8, 2023

In Board v. … See Pace,  No. 21-2845 Kares v. Morrison Page 9 544 U.S. at 417; Board, 805 F.3d at 776.

National Surety Co. v. United States ex rel. Pittsburgh & Buffalo Co.

228 F. 577 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 1916

His duty as a contractor, and as regards the sureties, was to pay the laborers their wages, and allow them to buy their board and clothing where tliev would.” United States, etc., Co. v. … Ed. 200 ); and so, although the original claim was for board, the claim allowed was for labor, and the case has no application here. Lybrandt v. Eberly, 36 Pa. 347 , and Bangs v. Berg, 82 Iowa, 350 , 48 N.

Cass County v. Gibson

107 F. 363 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 1901

Society v. Faulkner, 91 U. S. 415 , 23 L. Ed. 283 ; Railroad Co. v. Varnell, 98 U. S. 479 , 25 L. Ed. 233 ; Railway Co. v. Jurey, 111 U. S. 584 , 4 Sup. Ct. 566, 28 L. Ed. 527 ; Newport News & M. Val. Co. v. … Reuting v. City of Titusville, 175 Pa. 512 , 34 Atl. 916 ; Kramrath v. City of Albany, 127 N. Y. 575 , 28 N. E. 400 ; Shea v. Milford, 145 Mass. 529 , 14 N. E. 764 ; Collins v. Holyoke, 146 Mass. 298 , 15 N.

University of Cincinnati v. Heckler

733 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 1984

See, e.g., Loma Linda University v. Schweiker, 705 F.2d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.1983); Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Inc. v. Schweiker, 698 F.2d 336, 340 (8th Cir.1983); Chesire Hospital v. N.H.-V.T. … In Northwest Hospital, Inc. v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Action Auto Stores, Inc.

951 F.2d 349 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 10, 1991

The substantial evidence test is also applied to the Board's application of the law to the facts, and the Court may not displace any of the Board's reasonable inferences. NLRB v. … Roadway Express, Inc. v. NLRB, 831 F.2d 1285, 1289 (6th Cir.1987). When there is a conflict in the testimony, it is the Board's function to resolve questions of fact and credibility. NLRB v.

Alexander Leon Banks v. Rockwell International North American Aircraft Operations

855 F.2d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 1988

See also Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984). 2 In the instant case, the EEOC mailed appellant’s notice of right to sue on September 7, 1983. … Cook , however, relied on Brown v. Mead Corp., 646 F.2d 1163, 1165 (6th Cir.1981), decided prior to Zipes , which stated that Title VII filing requirements are jurisdictional.

Clay Sims v. R. W. Alvis, Warden

242 F.2d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 1957

Hawk v. Olson, 1945, 326 U.S. 271, 276 , 66 S.Ct. 116 , 90 L.Ed. 61 ; Brown v. Allen, 1953, 344 U.S. 443, 475 , 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 . … Brown v. Allen, 1953, 344 U.S. 443, 448, 486 , 73 S.Ct. 397 ; Cranor v. Gonzales, 9 Cir., 1955, 226 F.2d 83, 94 .

Wisconsin Land & Lumber Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

88 F.2d 151 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 1937

Findings of this character must rest in the sound discretion of the Commissioner and the Board of Tax Appeals, who are regarded as experts with extensive knowledge of all factors involved. Tracy v. … errors are not to be here corrected, Helvering v.

Shorter v. Campbell

59 F. App'x 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 20, 2003

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736-41 , 121 S.Ct. 1819 , 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001); Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.1998). … See Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 645 (6th Cir.1999); Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104 . Brown makes it explicit that a prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his complaint. Brown, 139 F.3d at 1104 .

Management & Investment Co. v. Zmunt

59 F.2d 663 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 1932

Indeed, for aught that is averred, they appeared before the board and contested the assessment. They had the right to do so, Conn v. Jones, 115 Ohio St. 186 , 152 N. … The statutes under which the board proceeded have been upheld by the Supreme Court of - the state. State ex rel. Bowman, v. County Commissioners, 124 Ohio St. 174 , 177 N. E. 271 .

Brock v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. (In Re Johnson)

611 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 2010

Thereafter, Robin Browning Brock, the chapter 7 trustee (“Trustee”), filed a complaint to avoid the lien of BB & T as a preferential transfer. … Brock v. Branch Banking & Trust (In re Johnson), 380 B.R. 455, 458-59 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2007) (footnote omitted).

Sam Williams v. Dwight Browman Grant Harris Daniel Barnes

981 F.2d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 1992

See Brown v. Waters, 959 F.2d 233 2104, (6th Cir.1992) (unpublished per curiam). … Pro se petitioner Brown’s complaint contained the following handwritten language: [Signature of Plaintiff Brown] I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements in My complaint herein from page 1 through

Tennessee Consolidated Coal Co. v. Commissioner

117 F.2d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 6, 1941

We think therefore that the order of the Board dismissing the petition upon the grounds indicated was clearly right. United States v. Felt & Tarrant Co., 283 U.S. 269 , 51 S.Ct. 376 , 75 L.Ed. 1025 ; Tucker v. … Co. v. United States, supra; Kings County Savings Institution v. Blair, 116 U.S. 200 , 6 S.Ct. 353 , 29 L.Ed. 657 ; Nichols v. United States, 7 Wall. 122, 130 , 19 L.Ed. 125 ; Lee Wilson & Co. v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Trans Tech Logistics, Inc.

135 F. App'x 799 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 28, 2005

The rule has been consistently applied by the Board and approved by the courts in cases such as the following: • NLRB v. … Elizabeth Community Hospital v.

United States v. Frank Stavroff

149 F.3d 478 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 1998

Dorsey v. Parke, 872 F.2d 163, 167 (6th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Garrett, 542 F.2d 23, 25 (6th Cir.1976)). … Bondie v. Bic Corp., 947 F.2d 1531, 1534 (6th Cir.1991).

United States v. William Bela Binder, No

313 F.2d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 1963

The Statute authorizes the Board to impose certain terms and conditions upon the parole of a prisoner. It is a matter within the discretion of the Board. “Court action is not made a part of it.” Hiatt v. … Gould v. Green, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 363 , 141 F.2d 533, 534 ; Clark v. Stevens, 291 F.2d 388 , C.A.6th.

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Consolidation Coal Company and William Petracca

884 F.2d 926 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 1989

Our review of a decision of the Board is limited to assuring that the correct statutory standards have been applied and that no errors of law have been made. Warman v. … The AU noted the apparent conflict between his ruling and the Board’s decision in Siebert v.