Case law

David ENGEBRETSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Hartford Insurance Company, Intervening Plaintiff, v. FAIRCHILD AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

21 F.3d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 1994

R.Evid. 702 & 703 because the allegedly objectionable statements were conclusions by qualified expert witnesses, not factual hearsay statements. … Establishing an alternative explanation is certainly probative of what happened.

Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park

226 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 2000

Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439 , 1443 (9th Cir.1986) (“References in memo-randa and declarations to a need for discovery do not qualify as motions under Rule 56(f). … CONCLUSION The decision in this case clearly turns on the outcome of the Rule 60(b) issue.

Geraldine Burley v. Jeffery Gagacki

834 F.3d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2016

Indeed, we have upheld the dismissal of a false arrest claim where a plaintiff was unable to “clearly identify” the police officer who made the arrest because she was 2 To the extent plaintiffs rely upon … And as the district court properly noted, a district court’s “decision to permit breaks at certain junctions during the trial testimony merely reflects ‘a judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration’ and are ‘immune

Teresa Booher v. Chris Montavon

555 F. App'x 479 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 2014

The district court also found that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because 2 A torus fracture is “a fracture in which there is a localized expansion or torus of the cortex, with little or no displacement … No. 13-3458 9 statement was to clearly indicate that the use of force would be necessary to move him to the newly assigned room and

Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee v. Vanderbilt University, Defendant-Appellee

185 F.3d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 1999

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Dobbs-Weinstein must show, at a minimum, that: (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; and (3) she suffered an adverse employment … We may also presume that she is qualified to be an Associate Professor with tenure in Vanderbilt's philosophy department in light of the fact that she now holds that position.

Mohamed Haider v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

595 F.3d 276 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 10, 2010

That is, the IJ must view the evidence in the aggregate, as “a collection of harmful events, even though they may not qualify individually as persecution, [that] may taken together constitute persecution.” Stenaj v. … The IJ in that case held that the petitioner had not established a nexus to a protected ground because the IJ believed Kumar had not established a protected ground. Kumar, 444 F.3d at 1053 .

Staunch v. Continental Airlines

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 7, 2008

The parties dispute whether Staunch qualified as an “eligible employee” under the FMLA when she sought leave related to her pregnancy beginning on January 21, 2002. … We find that Continental has clearly demonstrated that Staunch did not work 1,250 hours in the twelve months preceding her request for leave.

Medical Mutual of Ohio v. k. Amalia Enterprises Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 2008

MMO also contended in that motion that the district court clearly erred when it analyzed the contractual limitations provision at issue. … Page 9 because MMO did not introduce evidence in its motion for reconsideration that would establish that it could not have discovered the alleged fraud in February 2002.

Michael Garavaglia v. Gogebic County, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 2024

Specifically, the court held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Garavaglia failed to plausibly allege that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. … Without plausibly alleging a constitutional violation, Garavaglia fails to overcome the responding officers’ qualified-immunity defense. Crawford, 15 F.4th at 760. III.

United States v. Paul Corrado (98-2269) Nove Tocco (98-2270) Vito William Giacalone (98-2365)

227 F.3d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2000

The third defendant, Vito Giacalone, raises only one issue on appeal, arguing that his motion to dismiss all charges against him should have been granted because, in an earlier plea agreement, the government granted him immunity … In reviewing a district court’s sentencing determinations, we will not reverse the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, see United States v.

Shah v. Racetrac Petro Co

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 24, 2003

The Watkins- 1996), and Bollinger also never established a per se rule. … had been done by him in pursuance to the averred contract and agreement and are clearly referable thereto.

American Motors Corporation, American Motors Sales Corporation v. The Federal Trade Commission

384 F.2d 247 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 1967

I would have to qualify that on the basis that I do not think that anyone is qualified to answer that question, Mr. Muntsinger. … We consider these findings clearly erroneous.

United States v. Chambers

944 F.2d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 10, 1991

The court was uniquely qualified to pass on Colbert’s credibility. Particularly given the court’s reasons for rejecting Colbert’s recantation, we defer to the court’s judgment. United States v. … To establish withdrawal from a conspiracy, the defendant must show an affirmative act establishing withdrawal.

24 Fair empl.prac.cas. 437, 24 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,349 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. McCall Printing Corporation, Dayton Press Incorporated, and Internationalbrotherhood of Bookbinders, Local 199

633 F.2d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 24, 1980

A fair reading of the charges clearly indicates that the former carloaders were claiming that the denial of back seniority benefits to the carloaders, while such benefits were awarded to other groups including most recently … But Teamsters also held that 703(h) does not immunize a seniority system which has been negotiated or maintained for illegal purposes.

Haliym v. Mitchell

492 F.3d 680 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 13, 2007

Thus, we “conduct an independent review of federal law to determine if the state court either contravened or unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.” Thompson v. … Smalldon is no better qualified than Dr. Bertschinger. Dr. Smalldon is a psychologist, whereas Dr. Bertschinger is a psychiatrist. Dr.

United States Ex Rel. Prather v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc.

838 F.3d 750 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2016

But that portion reiterates that “[i]n order for home health services to qualify for payment under the Medicare program the following requirements must be met: ... … Prather is merely stating that the form’s language indicated that a certification was being signed before care was provided when the act of signing in fact came after care had begun, the fact that the statute and regulations clearly

Hoffner v. Bradshaw

622 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 2010

We agree with the district court that there was no violation, or unreasonable application, of clearly established Supreme Court law. … We find that the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Sales v. Marshall

873 F.2d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 1989

The statute clearly provides for awarding “costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other cases.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e). … It is clearly established that determination of timeliness of an application to intervene is within the trial court’s discretion. NAACP v.

Austin Griffith v. Franklin County, Ky.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 2020

Finally, the district court correctly found that the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity was plainly satisfied in the present case, because “Griffith’s right to medical treatment for a serious medical need has … Consequently, the nurses are not entitled to qualified immunity and Griffith’s claims against them should proceed to trial for adjudication by a finder of fact. v. Dr.

Adrian & Blissfield Railroad v. Village of Blissfield

550 F.3d 533 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 2008

Barrois, 533 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir.2008). 5 The STB’s approach is persuasive because the STB was authorized by Congress to administer the Termination Act and is therefore “uniquely qualified to determine whether state law … As the Fifth Circuit recently noted, “the STB has clearly identified where routine crossing disputes, such as the one at issue in this case, fall in this scheme of ICCTA preemption.” Id.