Case law

Sanborn v. Parker

629 F.3d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 2010

Clearly established federal law requires that, for such an argument to succeed, Sanborn must establish both that the government impermissibly intruded into the attorney–client relationship and that prejudice resulted from … The Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to the Fifth Amendment, the holding of Dinitz, or any other clearly established federal law.

Ramon Hueso v. J.A. Barnhart

948 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2020

His two circuit decisions cannot, as a matter of law, establish § 2255’s inadequacy. … Thus, Hueso’s prior convictions qualified as felony drug offenses, and he was subject to the enhanced federal mandatory minimum.

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Costle

632 F.2d 14 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 1980

What these petitioners clearly do contend is that the MAXT-24 model results are badly skewed to their great economic disadvantage by 1) the Class A assumption employed to estimate pollution dispersion in the least stable … Petitioner has failed to establish that the future growth considerations were used to establish the designation rather than to formulate the plan for curbing future pollution; nor has it established that these are two distinct

Karim Abdul Rahim v. W. Jeff Reynolds, Hartwell Hatfield, Bobby Chessor, David Westbrooks

925 F.2d 1465 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 12, 1991

immunity. … An order granting absolute immunity or qualified immunity is not a final appealable order. Coe v. Ziegler, 817 F.2d 29, 30 (6th Cir.1987) (per curiam).

Briscoe v. Fine

444 F.3d 478 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 13, 2006

We believe that both the parties and the district court misunderstood what must be shown in order to establish that an entity controlling the assets of an ERISA-covered plan qualifies as a fiduciary. 41 Under the statutory … Provident Bank, 170 F.3d 609, 613 (6th Cir.1999)) ("Common law breach of fiduciary duty claims are clearly preempted by ERISA.").

Charles Ash v. Board of Education of the Woodhaven School District

699 F.2d 822 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 1983

. § 380.1231 Sec. 1231. (1) The board of a school district shall hire and. contract with qualified teachers. … We have previously ruled, however, that the plaintiffs are unable to establish a federal cause of action under § 1983.

Thomas Killion v. KeHE Distributors

761 F.3d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 30, 2014

This situation is addressed in 29 C.F.R. § 541.504(d)(2): Drivers who generally would not qualify as exempt outside sales employees include: . . . … The court clearly said that “[a]n employment agreement cannot be utilized to deprive employees of their statutory [FLSA] rights.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Bristol Reg'l Women's Center v. Herbert Slatery, III

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 5, 2021

Even an unexpected $50 expense can cause women that qualify as low income to forgo food. Id. at 244 (Page ID #5036). … The evidence, however, established “that post-abortion regret is uncommon.” Adams & Boyle, 494 F. Supp. 3d at 525, 561–62.

Eaton Corp. v. Angstrom Auto. Group, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2026

Third, the jury instruction is not clearly inconsistent with the parties’ contract. … But Section 9.1 does not clearly displace the statutory provision on its face.

United States v. Stephen D. Akridge

346 F.3d 618 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 2003

Ellison's plea agreement is part of the record on appeal and clearly contains a cooperation provision. … Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037, 1043 (5th Cir.1980) (testimony partially induced by a grant of immunity); United States v.

Estate of Ralph L. Jones, Deceased, Zepha H. Jones v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

795 F.2d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 1986

This procedure limited rejection of informal conference agreements to circumstances involving “clearly defined error.” … The Court will not permit a party to a stipulation to qualify, change, or contradict a stipulation in whole or in part, except that it may do so where justice requires. (Emphasis added). .

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Smith

714 F.3d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 2013

Properly framed, the question in this case is whether Tilmon-Jones, as a nonparty to the underlying action, qualifies for relief under Rule 60(b). See Roberts v. … Even if we adopted such an exception, Tilmon-Jones’s motion would clearly fail.

Robert B. Elliott v. The University of Tennessee

766 F.2d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 1985

The University recognizes, as it must, the general principle established by footnote 7 in Kremer . … We *991 therefore adopt the rule clearly articulated by the Fourth Circuit. 8 . See footnote 9 infra. 9 . The Supreme Court vacated Gargiul and remanded the case in light of Migra .

United States v. Malcolm Earl Thomas

74 F.3d 676 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 16, 1996

Thomas makes the conclusory argument that the evidence should have been excluded because it “was clearly more prejudicial than probative” without stating how he was prejudiced. See Bonds, 12 F.3d at 573 . … We nonetheless find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Nicholson’s testimony was relevant to establish the disputed issue of Thomas’s identity.

Wellons v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

25 F. App'x 214 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 2001

Although Wellons disputes this finding on appeal, we need not decide the issue because, as discussed below, she clearly fails to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. B. … Furthermore, NWA contends that Wellons was not qualified for any of the jobs for which she applied within one year following her resignation. District Court Opinion, Dec. 17, 1999, at 4.

Cagle v. Gilley

933 F.2d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 28, 1991

Defendant Gilley has pending before this court an appeal from that portion of the order that denied his motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … This court generally will not review other issues simply because there is before it an appeal on qualified immunity. See Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v.

Samantha Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville and Bush-Quayle '92 Committee, Inc.

99 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 2, 1997

sufficiently developed" on the record below; and 2) to remand for development of an incompletely presented issue in the hope of finding a non-constitutional basis for deciding this case later on, when we presently confront a clearly … If so, the court must address the questions of state action and qualified immunity. Id.

Dale Sanlor and Robert E. Golata v. Police Officer McDermott Police Officer Bredin, and City of Livonia (Livonia Police Department)

911 F.2d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 1990

, qualified immunity, and contributory negligence. … assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time it was taken,.... 18 Anderson v.

United States v. Charles E. Lester and Edward Anthony Buccieri

363 F.2d 68 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 8, 1966

.§ 242, which forbids the deprivation “under color of any law * * * of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” … Such conduct would clearly offend state criminal statutes. Dealing with a like situation, the United States Supreme Court in Parr v.

Automobile Club of Michigan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

230 F.2d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 17, 1956

another act merely by reenactment of that provision, so that that administrative interpretation cannot be changed prospectively through exercise of appropriate rule-making powers.’ ” All of the above serves only to show clearly … Automobile clubs were granted tax immunity by O. D. 643, 3 Cum.Bull. 241 (1920). That ruling was followed by G. C.M. 2867, VII-1 Cum.Bull. 115 (1928) ; G.C.M. 3555, VII-1 Cum.Bull. 117 (1928). . “Art. 101-1.