Case law

United States v. David Jeremy Parker Barbara Jean Sutton and Peter Jansen Sutton

373 F.3d 770 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2004

Standard of Review This court reviews the district court’s findings of fact in a suppression hearing under the clearly erroneous standard, while the district court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. … The issue before the Supreme Court in Shadwick was whether municipal court clerks qualified as neutral and detached magistrates.

Alfred Keith Bragg v. Lamar Glenn, Columbus City Police

996 F.2d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

996 F.2d 1214 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited … Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court properly held in favor of Glenn because he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982); Grossman v.

United States v. Goff

187 F. App'x 486 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 2006

Examples of collateral final orders are orders denying qualified or absolute immunity that address only legal issues and do not address what facts the parties might be able to prove, 2 an order empaneling separate juries … City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306, 310-11 (6th Cir.2006) (reviewing order that denied qualified immunity); Todd v.

National Labor Relations Board v. Pinkerton's, Inc.

621 F.2d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 1980

He held the record did not establish any type of relationship between the union and Guardian or that there was any danger the interests of the employees would be subverted and concluded the union was qualified to represent … For even if his testimony were true, it would not establish a disqualifying conflict of interest.

Commercial Standard Ins. v. Robertson

159 F.2d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 1947

That is clearly a limitation of liability unless the broad language of the italicized portion of the endorsement which immediately follows, expunges the limitation. … It is not a reasonable interpretation to construe one clause of an endorsement as eliminating a limitation which another clause clearly preserves.

Ahmed v. Mukasey

519 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 20, 2008

In this regard, the IJ concluded that even though Ahmed was the intended beneficiary of an 1-130 petition filed by his adoptive father on his behalf, he did not qualify for an immediately available immigrant visa under the … The BIA stated: The pertinent facts of this case are set forth by the Immigration Judge and have not been shown to be clearly erroneous.

Fligiel v. Samson

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 7, 2006

Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983), and that the claims were barred on both sovereign and qualified immunity grounds. … of Samson, Garthwaite, and West, and the qualified immunity of Samson.

Carter v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 2006

We now examine whether this conclusion was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. A. … Thus, Napue and Giglio are clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. Accordingly, we cannot say that the decision of the Ohio Court of Appeals was “contrary to” clearly established federal law.

Robert Beck v. City of Cleveland, Ohio

390 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 2004

Clearly, compensatory time is not envisioned as a means to avoid overtime compensation. … If implemented, [the officer’s] proposed construction would remove the flexibility and control from the county that is clearly contemplated by the FLSA.” 368 F.3d at 1090 .

Elmer J. Benes v. United States

276 F.2d 99 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 1960

The distinction is well established and is clearly delineated by the court in the case of Miller v. … These facts are clearly incompatible with an intention to enter into a contract or to create a contractual relationship.

Alan Fambrough v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

611 F. App'x 322 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 11, 2015

records by establishing four requirements of admissibility under Rule 803(6). … Rule 803(6) does not require Lam and Heiser to have personal knowledge of the records to qualify as “other qualified witnesses,” but they must at least be familiar with the company’s recordkeeping practices.

Fang Huang v. Mukasey

523 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 2008

in ruling that [Huang] failed to meet her burden of establishing eligibility for the relief sought.” … the qualifying marriage has been terminated ... and the alien was not at fault in failing to meet the requirements” for removal of the conditional basis. 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4).

United States v. Jose Sierra-Villegas

774 F.3d 1093 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 23, 2014

The district court found a drug quantity of more than 11 kilograms beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the amount of meth seized in Michigan, which established a base offense level of 38 under the sentencing guidelines. … The government met its initial burden of establishing that Sierra-Villegas possessed the firearms during the commission of the offense.

Jason Cunningham v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 19, 2024

The district court dismissed the sheriff from the lawsuit, and we granted qualified immunity to the deputies. Cunningham v. Shelby County, 994 F.3d 761 (6th Cir. 2021). … That incident, together with this one, does not establish the kind of pattern our cases require.

Glenn v. MetLife

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 2006

Although it is not clear from the record what sort of documentation MetLife would have found sufficient to establish the negative effect of stress on Glenn’s medical condition, the plan itself does not restrict the type of … Rather, the plan provides that “[t]o qualify for benefits under the Plan, Total Disability must be supported by current medical documentation” and the claimant “must be under the regular care of a qualified physician under

Gulf Refining Co. v. Mark C. Walker & Son Co.

124 F.2d 420 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 1942

It urges, however, that immunity does not extend to liability for damage which results from the contractor’s negligence, Converse v. … Imagining or assuming that the weight of the machine upon the north beam injured the pipe lines, is clearly a non sequitur and does not rise to the dignity of inference.

Morales v. Mitchell

507 F.3d 916 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 2, 2007

We agree with the district court, however, that that conclusion is an unreasonable application of clearly established constitutional law. … First, the record clearly demonstrates that defense counsel failed to interview key witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense.

Powers v. Hamilton Cnty

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2007

Powers subsequently brought his own motion for partial summary judgment on liability, arguing that “the [c]ourt’s rejection of Defendants’ [summary-judgment] motion clearly establishes liability in his favor and in favor … Moreover, the Court stated that “[t]he distinction between these two sorts of claims is clearly established in our case law . . . .” Id.

Toran Peterson v. Richard Johnson

714 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2013

Under this standard, the hearing officer’s determination here clearly qualifies as having been rendered in a “judicial capacity.” … Almost all of the thirteen factors clearly either weigh in favor of a full-and-fair finding or are simply irrelevant to this case. Id.

Marvin Thrash v. Miami University

549 F. App'x 511 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 10, 2014

Thrash needed to “strengthen his [research] portfolio by clearly defining his research agenda” and “encourag[ed] Dr. … Lalvani was entitled to qualified immunity. “We review the denial of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity de novo because application of this doctrine is a question of law.” Bletz v.