Case law

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

United States v. Samuel Mullet, Sr.

822 F.3d 842 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 4, 2016

Either way, anything that qualifies as “kidnapping” under this definition qualifies as “[k]idnapping, [a]bduction, [u]nlawful [r]estraint” under § 2A4.1 of the guidelines. … In view of the close personal and familial connections between the assailants and the victims, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendants knew or should have known as much.

William Toth v. Grand Trunk Railroad, D/B/A Cn North America

306 F.3d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2002

“An abuse of discretion occurs when (1) the district court’s decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law, (2) the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, or (3) the district court’s decision is clearly unreasonable … Varga did not purport to overrule Benedict , which clearly establishes that the plaintiff has no duty to anticipate the evidence or theories that will be presented by the defense. Benedict, 822 F.2d at 1429-30 .

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.

Yellow Springs Exempted Village School District Board of Education v. Ohio High School Athletic Association, Yellow Springs Exempted Village School District Board of Education v. Ohio State Board of Education

647 F.2d 651 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 28, 1981

I would hold that this finding is not clearly erroneous. 91 The Penick standards have been met. … (footnote deleted). 10 Defendants argue strongly that this finding is clearly erroneous.

Kochins v. Linden-Alimak, Inc.

799 F.2d 1128 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 6, 1986

Sec. 29-28-103 (1980), and to the individual defendants on the ground that under Tennessee law they enjoy immunity against personal liability for allegedly negligent acts arising out of their employer's nondelegable duty … If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him. 27 A summary judgment movant bears the burden of clearly and convincingly establishing the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material

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.

Johnston v. O'Neill

130 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 3, 2005

Johnston, born October 23, 1948, was the oldest of several applicants rated “best qualified” for the position. … The district court based its ruling on case law establishing that the ATF agent who testified before the grand jury would be absolutely immune from suit based on the allegedly false testimony.

N.A.A.C.P. (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) Walter Harris, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs- Cross-Appellees v. City of Mansfield, Ohio William Friend, in His Individual Capacity And/or as Service Safety Director of Mansfield, Ohio, and City of Mansfield, Ohio, Cross-Appellant

866 F.2d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 1989

This court reviews the findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard; legal conclusions are given de novo review. … Plaintiffs also introduced testimony that Edward Meehan, Mansfield's Mayor, made a racially derogatory comment to local black leaders that he didn't think blacks were qualified to be policemen in the City of Mansfield.

Frank Foster v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.

710 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2013

Page 7 is to generate the product or service the business offers to the public) will not qualify for the exemption. See Schaefer, 358 F.3d at 402. … Plaintiffs do not contend that these factual findings are clearly erroneous, but instead argue that the SIs’ primary duty does not include the exercise of discretion or independent judgment on matters of significance as a

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.

Foresight Coal Sales, LLC. v. Kent Chandler

60 F.4th 288 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2023

The Commission says this is a finding of fact that we may set aside only if “clearly erroneous.” City of Pontiac Retired Emps. Ass’n, 751 F.3d at 430. … Second, even if SB 257 were a tax, it wouldn’t qualify for the Silas Mason exception. Compensatory taxes must meet three criteria.

Wolf Creek Collieries v. Olga Robinson and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

872 F.2d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 1989

They assert that only simple pneumoconiosis was established. … The pertinent text of § 727.203 is as follows: (a) Establishing interim presumption.

United States v. John Stanford, United States of America v. Joe Louis Becton

476 F.2d 41 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 1973

Thus, these statutes have clearly carved out the conduct of making mash as a separate offense, thereby distinguishing it from the other offenses involving other steps and phases of the distilling business. … to produce distilled spirits, or removes, without authorization by the Secretary or his delegate, any mash, wort, or wash, so made or fermented, from the designated premises of such lawfully qualified plant before being

Henry B. Walker, Jr., Trustee v. Felmont Oil Corporation, Ohio River Oil Company, Felmont Oil Corporation v. Ohio River Oil Company, Inc.

240 F.2d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 1957

The Commonwealth’s immunity from suit is not waived by the mere filing of pleadings by the Commission and by its agreeing to a trial on the merits. … Appel *917 lants contend that the ruling relied on is dictum, is clearly erroneous, not binding on the federal court, and should not be followed.

Atherton v. Anderson

86 F.2d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 11, 1936

The great weight of proof is that they were withheld, and the alteration of the minute book clearly established is really a potent circumstance to prove that the letters were in fact withheld. … But the issue as here presented is not one of mere negligence, for it “is clearly also established by previous decisions of this court, pointing out that where by law a responsibility is made to arise from the violation of

Globe Iron-Works Co. v. Huron Transp. Co.

97 F. 872 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 1899

Burlinson, 2 Mees. & W. 602, Lord Abinger said: “There is no occasion to qualify the doctrine laid down in Woods v. Russell or Clarke v. Spence. … McKinly, 11 Humph. 206 , has been cited as approving the arbitrary rule of intention supposed to be established by Woods v. Russell.

United States v. Ronnie Lee Goldy

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2026

“[S]etting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act.’” Id. … Ordinarily, “[t]o establish plain error, [a defendant] must show that the district court (1) committed an error, (2) that was clear or obvious, and (3) which affected [the defendant’s] substantial rights.

Jelovsek v. Bredesen

545 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 24, 2008

Likewise, Tennessee’s decision to adhere to a three-tier distribution system is immune from direct challenge on Commerce Clause grounds. … Likewise, the effect ... is clearly discriminatory, in that it applies only to locally produced beverages.... ” Id. at 271 , 104 S.Ct. 3049 .

Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 39,729 Claudie Cook v. Roland Hairston

948 F.2d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 26, 1991

must also be able to demonstrate that he or she would have been otherwise qualified to participate in the program. … The United States Supreme Court has recognized that § 1983 "provides a federal remedy for 'the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.' " Golden State Transit Corp. v.