Case law

V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Moseley

259 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 30, 2001

Some marks may qualify as arbitrary because they have no logical relationship to the product, but nonetheless have a low level of distinctiveness because they are common. … And as to consumer surveys, they are expensive, time-consuming and not immune to manipulation. Id. at 224 .

Betty Jo Pendleton v. Jefferson Local School District Board of Education and Principal Donald Schiff

958 F.2d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 1992

"otherwise qualified handicapped individual" for purposes of the Act and 2) that she was terminated because of her handicap. … Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), has been modified in handicapped discrimination cases as follows: 27 1) The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by showing that he was an otherwise qualified handicapped person apart

Robinson v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

441 F.2d 1396 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 30, 1971

In its most recent consideration of the relation between the First Amendment and broadcasting, the Supreme Court said: “Although broadcasting is clearly a medium affected by a First Amendment interest, United States v. … “The establishment of the truth about Krebiozen as soon as possible is critically important to the public.

David Lawrence v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary, State of Ohio

430 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 2005

Plaintiffs have easily met their burden of establishing the first prong. … Although there are clearly limits, a wide range of methods of requiring potential candidates to show support have been upheld as legitimate means to achieve this important state interest.

United States v. Steven C. Streebing

987 F.2d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 1993

At no time did the United States Attorney ever offer defendant immunity from prosecution. 5 Therefore, because the FBI agent lacked any actual or apparent authority to make the alleged promise not to prosecute, the District … abide by a secret service agent’s promise to a defendant to drop federal counterfeit charges in exchange for defendant’s cooperation in the case where the United States Attorney never sanctioned the agreement and promise clearly

United States v. Jesse James Vandeberg

201 F.3d 805 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 2000

failure to articulate factual basis for § 3B1.1 enhancement “essentially compels” de novo review). *811 Based on a thorough review of the record, we conclude that remand for further findings is unnecessary because the record clearly … It appears that the District Court took all of this evidence into account when exercising its discretion to establish the restitution amount.

Joplin v. Baylor

1 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 1993

who are sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's surviving claims.

Earl Patton Coal Co. v. Patton

848 F.2d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 1988

The three regulations clearly preclude duplicate consideration of claims, and recognize a claimant’s statutory right to select review by either the S.S.A. or the Department of Labor. … because he was president and owner of the company; (3) that the employer’s evidence of other medical ailments did not rebut evidence that he was partially disabled by breathing problems, the evidence consisting of four qualifying

Overton Distributors, Inc. v. Heritage Bank

340 F.3d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 22, 2003

Instead, the payment terms on all invoices from 1998 forward were “10 days EOM,” establishing that the payment was due within 10 days after the end of each calendar month in which produce was delivered. … The parties had clearly agreed in 1994 to terms different from the standard 10-day payment provision contained in the PACA regulations.

Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Redland Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 15, 2008

In addition to the general rule that ambiguous policy provisions must be construed against the insurer, Ohio law requires us to interpret exclusions “as applying only to that which is clearly intended to be excluded.” … But to establish a relevant ambiguity, a litigant must put forward a “plausible” competing interpretation of the phrase, see Zirnhelt v. Mich. Consol.

Rice v. White

660 F.3d 242 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 24, 2011

Wainright resulted in an unreasonable application of clearly established law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), the Court held that “no deference is due” to the state court adjudication. See id. at 948. … App’x 618, 627 (4th Cir. 2005) (“If the state court adjudication is contrary to or an unreasonable application of ‘clearly established’ Supreme Court precedent, then § 2254(d) is no bar to relief, but habeas relief is not

United States v. Whitmore

193 F. App'x 568 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2006

Whitmore argues that Meggs should not have been permitted to give opinion testimony as he was not qualified as an expert under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. … In sum, the district court’s rationale and findings clearly indicate that the court carefully considered all of the factors un *577 der § 3553(a).

Ervine Davenport v. Duncan MacLaren

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 15, 2020

Over and over, the Supreme Court has admonished us not to frame its holdings at such a lofty level of generality in deciding what law has been “clearly established.” Lopez v. … First, under the Brecht standard, a petitioner isn’t limited to clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Amadou Lamine Sarr v. Alberto R. Gonzales, United States Attorney General

485 F.3d 354 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2007

The Board dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, finding both that the immigration judge’s credibility determinations were not clearly erroneous and that the record supported the conclusion “that the conditions in Senegal have … Thus, in order to qualify for withholding of removal, the petitioner “must establish that there is a clear probability that he will be subject to persecution if forced to return to the country of removal.” Pilica v.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Dickens

719 F.2d 146 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 1983

This Plan was at all relevant times qualified under applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, and was subject to the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., including … Chamber of Commerce, contend that while Congress clearly intend *150 ed to prevent corporations from evading responsibilities toward funding their pension plans by manipulating the corporate form, a “wooden application” of

Diane M. Koch, Special Administratrix of the Estate of Curtis J. Koch, Deceased v. A. C. Gorrilla, M. D., and M. A. Gertz, M. D.

552 F.2d 1170 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 1977

Gorrilla testified' in substance that the symptoms and history related by decedent during his initial examination did not clearly indicate appendicitis or permit him to rule out other causes, such as food poisoning or an … Similar attempts to establish malpractice without expert medical testimony on the issue of negligence were rejected in Wrobel v.

Bies v. Bagley

519 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 27, 2008

Taken together, these clearly established principles of federal law prohibit the State of Ohio from relitigating the issue of Petitioner’s mental retardation. A. … We believe that this prong has also been established here.

Superior Production Partnership v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co.

784 F.3d 311 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 2015

Matsushita clearly considered both below-cost pricing and the likelihood of recoupment to impact, if not fully determine, the plausibility of a predatory pricing conspiracy. See id. at 590–91. … First, the witness must be qualified by ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.’

Estate of Quirk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

928 F.2d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 1991

Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 , 54 S.Ct. 8, 9 , 78 L.Ed. 212 (1933), and the burden is on the challenging party to establish reversible error. Tax Court Rule 142(a). … Mary Quirk’s second contention is that she qualifies as an innocent spouse under Section 6013(e).

Jacob Pierce v. Bucky Rowland

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2021

App’x 566, 569 (6th Cir. 2014) (“In objecting to [a report and recommendation denying qualified immunity], it is also true, [defendants] did not use the words ‘qualified immunity.’. . . … One does not forfeit a qualified immunity defense by making arguments that, if accepted, establish the defense.”); Tree of Life Christian Schs. v.