Case law

Corporate Risk Management Corporation v. Ernest Solomon, Herman Coleman and Dhiraj N. Shah

936 F.2d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 1991

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), however, the United States Supreme Court held that an immediate appeal could be taken from an interlocutory order denying a claim of qualified immunity. … The collateral order doctrine applies to such orders, Mitchell held, because qualified immunity entitles the defendant not to stand trial; a denial of immunity is thus effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment

United States v. Valentine

70 F. App'x 314 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2003

The record clearly shows that the verdict forms contained special interrogatories. … The district court noted, however, that the testimony of three witnesses established that Dedrick himself sold over 150 grams of crack, the minimum amount necessary to establish a base offense level of 34.

Jerry Duncan v. Leonard Muzyn

833 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 12, 2016

Rule 11’s other sections, too, treat COLAs differently from benefits that clearly are vested. … First, the subsection qualifies the TVA’s duty to fund COLAs with the language “[t]o the fullest extent TVA finds feasible.”

Be&k Construction Company, Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/coss-Petitioner, Steamfitters Local 342, Intervenors

246 F.3d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2001

Attainment by the unions of even site-specific improvements or promises of diligent enforcement of existing health and safety standards, moreover, clearly establishes helpful precedent for future labor actions and serves … That decision, however, involved only a claim of Noerr-Pennington immunity from antitrust liability.

Williams v. Meyer

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 25, 2003

Section 8 provided that a of that illness can reasonably be expected within the near defendant was immune from prosecution for the “the offense with which future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously … established by the violence.

John W. Banks, II v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

345 F.3d 373 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

Petitioner argues that the tax court clearly erred in failing to give appropriate weight to the characterization in the settlement agreement. … Thus, it appears that the tax court was applying a standard other than the standard established by Crosley.

Erick Peeples v. City of Detroit, Mich.

891 F.3d 622 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2018

To do so, the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework requires that Plaintiffs prove four elements: (1) they were members of a protected class; (2) they suffered adverse employment actions; (3) they were qualified for … In Wells, this Court adopted the Seventh Circuit test established in Bugg v.

DRFP L.L.C. v. República Bolivariana De Venezuela

706 F. App'x 269 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2017

And, as Skye has argued throughout the litigation, there are multiple ways to establish Venezuela’s obligation to pay on the instruments at issue. … As the district court held, ample evidence established that the Notes are fake, and, as noted, Skye voices no challenge to that finding on appeal.

United States v. Gregory L. Myers

123 F.3d 350 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 1997

“Types and quantities of drugs not specified in the count of conviction [that qualify as relevant conduct] may be considered in determining the offense level.” … In light of Kelvin Smith’s testimony at trial, the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous.

Randy Bowers v. Danny Phillips

798 F.2d 1413 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 1986

The district court concluded that-as a matter of law the defendant had probable cause for both arrests based on the totality of the circumstances and the grand jury presentment and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity … from damages under Sec. 1993, inasmuch as he had not violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Amerco Marketing Co. of Memphis, Inc. v. Myers

494 F.2d 904 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 1974

In that case the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff failed to establish a jury issue as to causation. … The quoted language from the lease contract does not clearly show an intent that the customer will indemnify Amerco for damages or liability resulting from Amerco’s own negligence.

United States v. Guadalupe Gonzalez and Moises Salazar

38 F.3d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 1994

Consequently, any such error was clearly harmless. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). 52 VI. … The Court finds that he is a supervisor. 62 That decision by the district judge is not clearly erroneous.

National Labor Relations Board v. Chardon Rubber Co.

90 F. App'x 84 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 2003

Any one of the powers enumerated in 29 U.S.C. § 152 (11) suffices to establish an employee as a “supervisor.” … Clearly it was an effective recommendation. Lytle was asked, "can you think of any instances where ... shift leaders might have one opinion and you had a different one, and your opinion prevailed?” (J.A. at 206.)

Jesus Ramirez, Cross-Appellants v. Jack E. Webb, Gregory Kowalski, Michael Went, John D. Helgeson, Michael T. Hawes, Gearge Dahl, Robert Wallis, Daniel Moritz, Timothy Houghtaling, Manfred Zarfl, Gregory Bednarz, John Dam, Frank Falowski, James Wellman and Oscar Gonzalez, Both Individually and in Their Official Capacity as Agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, James Montgomery, Paul E. McKinnon Edward Short, Robert Wagus, Jerald D. Jondall, Emil Orsack, Ricky Dixon, James D. Kunkle, Brian F. Munson, James F. Gilmore, Stanley R. Desonia, Donald C. Teeple, Stephen E. Nusbaum, Edward T. Farley, Ronald Dowdy, Edwin W. Earl, Charles L. Huffman, Robert J. McNamara James J. Higgins, Kenneth S. Harris, and Larry G. Launder, in Their Official Capacities, the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Cross-Appellees

803 F.2d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 26, 1986

Rather, it is a case where the district court denied partial summary judgment based on the qualified immunity defense. 9 In Mitehell v. … City of Cleveland, it is clear that the denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable.

Grantham and Mann, Inc., D/B/A Grantham Safety Industries, Inc. v. American Safety Products, Inc., Sam Evans, Richard J. Althoff and James Hunneke

831 F.2d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 1987

in establishing the amount of damages with the reasonable certainty required under Tennessee law. … A plaintiff will qualify as a “prevailing party,” however, only upon successfully showing that he suffered actual injury; proof of a mere technical violation of the N.C.Act is not sufficient to warrant an award of attorney

Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n

377 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 27, 2004

Tennessee Secondary School determined to be clearly erroneous. Berger v. Medina City Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001). Cmtys. for Equity, Sch. … Because of “the pervasive entwinement of Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall make or enforce state school officials in the structure of the association,” the any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

United States v. Anderson

526 F.3d 319 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 27, 2008

We find that the district court’s drug quantity determination was not clearly erroneous. … Gall clearly directed the focus of sentencing courts to the Guidelines.

Thomas Clyde Bowling, Jr. v. Phillip Parker, Warden

344 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 2003

Some of Bowling’s claims clearly have no merit. … So the relevant question is not whether the state court’s decision was wrong, but whether it was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.”). 1.

Matthew Gillis v. John Miller

845 F.3d 677 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2017

Section 198B of Title 42 of the United States Code provides a civil cause of action for persons “who are deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal laws by those acting under … But also the notice clearly, explicitly, and emphatically says that it is not advising refusal to cooperate with the investigation but rather is advising employees of their rights.

Mayor of Baltimore v. West Virginia (In re Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.)

285 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2002

Baltimore also asserted that substantial prejudice would result to the claimants who timely filed because granting the motion would expand the number of qualifying participants in the Tier I division. … L/P/G Benghazi 653 F.2d 812 (3rd Cir.1981)) (discussing the notice provisions in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act); see also Straub v. A.P.