Case law

United States v. Tammy Brewer

332 F. App'x 296 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 18, 2009

A “declarant” is one who makes a “statement,” and words constitute a “statement” only if they qualify as an “assertion.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(b), (a). … Here, Mac Combs clearly made his statements to assist Campbell in carrying out his duties in the conspiracy.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Memphis Health Center, Inc.

526 F. App'x 607 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 17, 2013

Factual Background MHC is a nonprofit, federally-qualified community health center, providing medical services to low-income and uninsured patients in the Memphis, Tennessee area. … An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court has relied on “clearly erroneous findings of fact, when it improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard.” Phelan v.

Grace v. Uscar

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2008

However, the record does establish that DGE employed at least 50 employees and thus qualifies as an “employer” for FMLA purposes. … But in this case, Bartech clearly satisfies the numerosity prong and, by extension, Congress’ concern that only large employers be required to provide FMLA leave.

Joan Elena Lanier v. The American Board of Endodontics and the American Association of Endodontists, a Corporation

843 F.2d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 14, 1988

Lanier in Michigan were for purposes of establishing a business relationship, albeit of a professional nature. … It set itself out as an expert in the field of endodontics, it established mandatory standards that Michigan dentists must meet in order to obtain diplómate status, and it established channels for providing regular advice

Richerson v. United States

104 F.3d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 1996

104 F.3d 361 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished … Clearly, the hospital exception does not apply unless a physician teaches and works at the University Hospital. 14 Given that Dalpra is a full-time employee of the University of Michigan Medical School (an independent contractor

Ray v. Security Mutual Finance Corp.

731 F.2d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 1984

Two elements are crucial to the establishment of the contemporaneous exchange exception: 1. … As Davis notes, one line of cases holds that section 547(c)(1) is merely cumulative with section 547(c)(3), so that a transfer which occurs more than 10 days after the cash advance, thus not qualifying under section 547(c

Stallworth v. City of Cleveland

893 F.2d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 1990

Stallworth's loss of consortium claim does not represent an injury based on a deprivation of his rights, privileges or immunities. … Gulf & Western Indus., 756 F.2d 443, 451 (6th Cir.1985). 96 839 F.2d at 250. 97 While the damages in this case were not "ascertainable prior to trial," and were clearly "unliquidated" in nature, interest on these damages

United States v. Paige

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 2006

Sentencing Defendant challenges the district court’s finding that he had at least two prior convictions that qualified as predicate convictions for purposes of enhancement under § 841(b)(1)(A). … This is neither a denial, nor an adequate showing sufficient for this court to conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding that the defendant had at least two qualifying prior felony drug convictions.

Spears v. City of Louisville

27 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 14, 1994

Because the officers violated no clearly established constitutional right, they were entitled to qualified immunity. … However, the Jones and Galas analyses clearly indicate that pursuit in a situation such as this one does not deprive a fleeing motorist of constitutional rights.

Franklin Todd Flippo Tina Marie Flippo v. Tommy Phelps, Also Known as Tommy Connell Don Linzy Jim Vaughn Officer James Jones

983 F.2d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 5, 1993

immunity. … immunity; Linzy's, Vaughn's and Jones' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and plaintiffs' failure to state a privacy claim.

United Mine Workers of America v. Osborne Mining Co.

279 F.2d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 7, 1960

Those strands are clearly part of the pattern of the employer-employee relationship.” … . § 106 ), does not immunize the unions from the activities shown here.

Ethan Walton v. Marva Livingston Hammons, Director, Michigan Family Independence Agency

192 F.3d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 1999

with the state in establishing paternity or in establishing, modifying or enforcing a support order with respect to a child of the individual, and the individual does not qualify for any good cause or other exception established … The path of the language that ultimately became § 2015(i) is clearly marked.

Robert R. Jones Associates, Inc. v. Nino Homes, Michele Lochirco, Diebele-Ginter

858 F.2d 274 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 7, 1988

In contrast, the applicant for a copyright need only establish that the creative work is original. … Section 504 clearly qualifies section 505. Because the interpretation of these two statutes raises a legal issue, the abuse of discretion standard does not apply. 8 .

Bobbie Clinton Baker, Cross-Appellant v. Richard P. Seiter, John F. Kinkela, James K. Jackson, Ronald Nelson, Deborah Timmerman, Charles R. Mason, Frederick McAnich Cross-Appellees

872 F.2d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 1989

immunity. … In the qualified immunity context, an order denying summary judgment without prejudice to refiling after further discovery is not final. Sinclair v. Schriber, 834 F.2d 103, 104-05 (6th Cir.1987).

Williams v. United States District Court

658 F.2d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 1981

The order provided a qualified exception in instances in which any party or counsel asserted a constitutional right to communicate. The court made no findings of fact. … In all cases not provided'for by rule, the district courts may regulate their practices in any manner not inconsistent with these rules. . 28 U.S.C. § 2071 provides: The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation v. United States

938 F.2d 58 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 8, 1991

The Regulation establishes detailed reporting requirements for both the grantor and grantee. … The reporting symmetry established by the Regulation further val *61 idates this interpretation.

United States v. Intl Fidelity Ins

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 2000

If this is so, this work should be held to Congress sought to relieve the government of the burden of constitute § 270b(b) labor, unless it is shown clearly that the establishing final settlement dates … Co. 11 manufacturer qualify as “labor performed” or “material ____________________ supplied.”

Eggerson v. Hessler

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 15, 2007

The court also noted that the defendant would have been entitled to qualified immunity in any event. … The court determined that there was no constitutional violation and, therefore, did not find it necessary to determine whether Hessler was entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. James Lykins

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 2013

The court also concluded that even if Doan’s use of force was objectively unreasonable, he was entitled to qualified immunity. We held that “[t]he district court’s analysis [was] sound.” … Since there was no Fourth Amendment violation, we need not reach the question whether Jobes is entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. James C. Curtis

782 F.2d 593 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 1986

Davis clearly establishes that the government presented sufficient evidence of the existence of a tax deficiency to support Curtis’ conviction. II. … Then finally, the taxpayer is allowed a deduction of $750.00 for 1978 and $1,000.00 for 1979 and 1980 for each qualified exemption.