Case law

Marty O'Shea Franklin, Cross-Appellant v. Max Aycock, Cross-Appellees

795 F.2d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 15, 1986

The defendants assert that the district court’s finding that Franklin was beaten is clearly erroneous. … Accordingly, we hold that the district court’s finding that Franklin was beaten is not clearly erroneous.

Dalal Zayed v. United States of America

368 F.3d 902 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 24, 2004

Our answer — a heavily qualified “no” — is different in form, but it leads us to the same result on the facts presented here. … Although the petition *905 was dismissed without prejudice, the dismissal clearly terminated the action; Ms. Zayed could not cure the defect by amendment.

King v. Ford Motor Co.

209 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2000

Again, Ford has not demonstrated that the district court clearly erred. … At the close of plaintiffs’ proofs, Ford filed a motion the plaintiffs must establish two essential elements as for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ.

Saltire Industrial, Inc. v. Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, PLLC

491 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2007

According to Saltire, the IDB was entitled to immunity from suit under Tennessee state law, but the IDB never moved to dismiss on this ground. … Clearly the first and second categories listed above do not apply because no fiduciary or contractual relationship existed between the two parties.

Yolanda Chigano v. City of Knoxville

529 F. App'x 753 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2013

Because Hatcher and Bianucci raised a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must first show that Hatcher and Bianucci violated one of M.C.’s constitutional rights and that such right was clearly established. … Clearly Established Right The court need not determine whether the constitutional right asserted was clearly established because there was no finding of a constitutional violation.

Samuel H. Sheppard v. E. L. Maxwell, Warden

346 F.2d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 14, 1965

Many of these extra-judicial contacts and communications with the jury are clearly established by the record. … Thorough as have been petitioner’s efforts in this regard, it cannot be clearly established that claimed violations of defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights (through lie detector testimony) have been presented to the Ohio Supreme

United States v. Bullock

526 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2008

Rather, a district court can only apply the enhancement if the government “establishes], by a preponderance of the evidence, a nexus between the firearm and an independent felony.” United States v. … qualifying federal offense of threatening to kill a Member of the United States Congress.

Northern Ohio Lung Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency

572 F.2d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 1978

By reviewing the data presented for his consideration and clearly articulating his conclusion, the Administrator acted within the scope of his discretion. … At the time of the Administrator’s approval of the revised attainment date, September 23, 1976, the Clean Air Act enumerated eight criteria which an SIP had to meet to qualify for approval.

United States v. Mardis

600 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 31, 2010

The facts of this case do not rise to the level of a “sham prosecution” so as to qualify for the exemption to the dual sovereignty doctrine. C. … As the doctrine is well- established federal law, this argument is unpersuasive.

Harris v. Detroit Public Schools

245 F. App'x 437 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 13, 2007

The parties’ briefs also discuss the issue of qualified immunity as it applies to the individual Defendants-Appellants. … that issue, and because the district court correctly dismissed Harris’s claims on the merits, we need not reach the question of qualified immunity. See R.S.W.W., Inc. v.

Term Auto Sales, Inc. v. City of Cleveland

958 F.2d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 1992

On April 8, 1991, the district court denied the motion without opinion. 3 The police officers appeal the denial of their qualified immunity claim. See Long v. … Norris, 929 F.2d 1111, 1113-14 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 187 (1991) (denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity is immediately appealable).

Richard Hatcher v. United States

512 F. App'x 527 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 2013

It is established that the district court may consider affidavits and other documents outside the record on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, but it must do so in a manner that is fair to the non-moving party. Rogers v. … If not, the National Park Service’s decision as to the precise action to take would clearly fall within the discretionary function exception to the government’s tort liability. Id.

Compuware Corp v. Moody Inv

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2007

A plaintiff who qualifies as a public official or public figure may recover for defamation only if he produces clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with actual malice. New York Times Co. v. … The Michigan Supreme Court has recognized that this implied contractual duty “is clearly a form of the traditional negligence standard.” Williams v. Polgar, 215 N.W.2d 149, 156 (Mich. 1974).

Herman Theunissen and Ann Theunissen v. Sid Matthews D/B/A Matthews Lumber Transfer

935 F.2d 1454 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 1991

The facts Theunissen alleged in his affidavits clearly satisfy each of these provisions. … In each of the preceding discussions, our analysis has been qualified by the caveat that Appellant’s allegations must be true.

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.

United States v. Savoires

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2005

And the qualifying phrase for the first offense, “during and in relation to” a crime of the type described, is conjoined with the qualifying phrase for the second offense, “in furtherance of” such a crime. … We are satisfied, therefore, that plain error has been established, see id.

Linda Kay Sullivan v. George Brown

544 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 19, 1976

Davis, supra, clearly it controls our decision on the reputation issue in this case. The result we reach in the present case is consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in Goss v. … Additionally, plaintiff might establish a claim for defamation under the laws of Tennessee.

Bush & Burchett, Inc. v. Robert B. Reich, Secretary of Labor the Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission

117 F.3d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 22, 1997

Under the agreement between BBI and Heartland, BBI was required to establish a safety plan and program. … The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that not only was United Energy an operator within the meaning of the statute, but also that the "dozer trap, conveyor belt, and other equipment ... qualify as 'structures, equipment,

Carelli v. Howser

923 F.2d 1208 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 1991

establish paternity, and initiate proceedings to establish and collect support awards. … Sec. 603 (h). 45 Although we have only skimmed the surface of the relevant rules and regulations, we believe enough has been set forth to indicate clearly the complexity of the audit process.

United States v. Leonard C. Krimsky

230 F.3d 855 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 24, 2000

Krimsky’s account with Marine Midland was not a defined benefit pension plan account and therefore was not qualified to receive the plan funds. … Decisions in prior cases, however, establish that reckless disregard satisfies the intent requirement of similar statutes. For example, in United States v.