Case law

Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States

91 F.2d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 1937

. § 403 et seq.]), establishing the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. … In the instance of each of the three witnesses, qualifying experience and sufficient knowledge of the subject matter were shown to permit properly the expression of opinion as to the value of the property. 2.

Harold F. Braithwaite v. The Timken Company

258 F.3d 488 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 18, 2001

While three of these statements clearly accuse the plaintiff of shoving Mr. … As noted above, Talley’s testimony was contradicted by three witnesses who clearly stated that Harold Braithwaite had shoved Roy Dow-dell several times.

United States v. Elliot

327 F. App'x 540 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 2009

As for Junior’s legal objection—that he cannot qualify as a conspiracy leader because he controlled just one participant, Burke, and other conspirators also con- *545 trolled Burke—it lacks merit because “[m]ore than one … If the government establishes that the defendant possessed a weapon, a presumption arises that the weapon was connected to the offense.

Grutter v. Bollinger

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2002

Additionally, Professor Lempert testified regarding the lottery system, in which the Law School would lower its admissions standards, establish a numerical cut-off for “qualified” applicants, and then select randomly from … Collegiality, cooperation and the court’s decision-making process clearly are not. And public confidence in the judicial system and in this court clearly are not.”).

United States v. Wright

464 F. App'x 475 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 2012

To establish plain error, Defendant must show “(1) error (2) that was obvious or clear, (3) that affected defendant’s substantial rights and (4) that affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial … Rule 702 says a witness may be qualified as an expert based on “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed.R.Evid. Rule 702.

In Re Detroit Auto Dealers Association, Inc., Barnett Pontiac-Datsun, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

955 F.2d 457 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 1992

Labor policy clearly does not require, however, that a union have freedom to impose direct restraints on competition among those who employ its members. … We must decide whether the agreement should be subject to the nonstatutory labor exemption and therefore be immunized from antitrust scrutiny.

Bridging Communities Inc. v. Top Flite Financial Inc.

843 F.3d 1119 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 15, 2016

“An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard when reaching a conclusion, or makes a clear error … As Top Flite conceded at oral argument, however, the question of who ordered the faxes and in what capacity— and the question of who qualifies as a “sender” under the TCPA—is common to the class.

Tran v. Gonzales

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 17, 2006

The BIA reversed the decision of the immigration judge (IJ), who had found Tran removable because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony, but deferred his deportation because Tran qualified for protection under the … Cir. 1996) (holding it is improper to disregard “the Congressional intent clearly expressed in the text simply by asserting that its preferred approach would be better policy”). B.

Resurrection Sch. v. Elizabeth Hertel

11 F.4th 437 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2021

Despite Smith’s observation that F.S. is unable to wear a mask because of his health conditions, F.S.’s pediatrician determined that F.S. did not qualify for a medical exemption.4 Id. ¶ 11 (Page ID #194). … “This [voluntary cessation] exception properly applies only when a recalcitrant legislature clearly intends to reenact the challenged regulation.” Ky. Right to Life, Inc. v.

Naysha Oquendo v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2025

own home” while “supporting the three qualifying children,” and “resided with the three qualifying children for more than 6 months of the tax year.” … In doing so, we are mindful that Oquendo has the affirmative duty to establish her entitlement to equitable tolling. Jackson v. United States, 751 F.3d 712, 718–19 (6th Cir. 2014).

United States v. Jackson

110 F. App'x 635 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 17, 2004

Upon review, we conclude that Jackson has not established that he was entitled to a reduction for being a minimal or minor participant. … This evidence clearly reflects that Jackson’s role in the offense was neither minimal nor minor. Unlike most of the conspirators, Jackson was involved in the conspiracy for all three years.

Jones v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 299

838 F.2d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 1988

We stated further in Maynard : The doctrine of preemption is firmly established in labor law. … The limitation on cross-bumping for office employees was established by the contract, not union misconduct.

Talwar v. Catholic Healthcare Partners

258 F. App'x 800 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 20, 2007

Moreover, Defendants argued that even if Plaintiff established liability, they were protected under Ohio’s peer review immunity statute. … A prima facie case is established where a plaintiff demonstrates that 1) he is a member of a protected class; 2) he was qualified for his job and performed it satisfactorily; 3) despite his qualifications and performance

United States v. Terrance D. Brown

147 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 8, 1998

“To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.” Commentary, applic. note 2. … There clearly was a scheme to defraud, about which both Hutchinson and Heaps testified, and in which Brown participated. J.A. at 233, 235, 259, 295, 300, 309, 313-14, 315, 316.

United States v. Branham

97 F.3d 835 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 1996

Accordingly, we hold that Allen has failed to establish prosecutorial vindictiveness. … But in this case, he clearly perjured himself....

Kidwell v. City of Union

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2006

The resolution establishing a Union fire department was challenged by the plaintiffs via a ballot initiative requiring a referendum. … The district court dismissed the mayor and town council after finding that they qualified, respectively, for qualified and absolute immunity.

Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson

641 F.3d 230 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 24, 2011

In sum, the record clearly reflects that the City expressly consented to the magistrate judge’s exercise of plenary jurisdiction under § 636(c).3 3 The County and state defendants did not intervene … Under the “collateral order doctrine” established by Cohen v.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Prevo's Family Market, Inc.

135 F.3d 1089 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 1998

While acknowledging that the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) has never found a case where Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (“AIDS”) or Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”) had been transmitted by an infected worker … Yet, even if he did present a direct threat, he is still a “qualified worker” if he can be reasonably accommodated. 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (3); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (r) (1997).

Terry Elsey v. Burger King Corporation

917 F.2d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 23, 1990

This statement, however, is immediately followed by the qualifying comment that “each individual must earn this security by his contribution, in whatever degree and manner his opportunities provide, to the success of the … Thus, any suggestion of job security in the initial sen *260 tence of the policy is clearly offset by the subsequent caveat that employees must earn whatever job security they may obtain.

Paolo Bronzino v. Dunn

558 F. App'x 613 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 13, 2014

As to Dunn, the district court held that there was a question of fact concerning whether Dunn used excessive force in arresting Bronzino, and that this question precluded Dunn’s qualified immunity defense. … The record clearly establishes that Dunn was aware of Bronzino’s criminal history before making the arrest.