Case law

Doyle v. City of Columbus

136 F. App'x 803 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 7, 2005

Further, the court concluded that even if Bell had been acting under color of state law, he was entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted. Doyle now appeals. … Plaintiff has not established that the City conspired with anyone for the purpose of depriving plaintiff or any class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.

Beril Hoosier v. Bobby H. Harden

898 F.2d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 13, 1990

immunity. … immunity.

Tumblebus Inc v. Cranmer

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 2005

A district court has abused its discretion if it has “relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard.” … Thus, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that TUMBLEBUS is not a generic term incapable of obtaining protected status.

United States v. Lee Augarten, Ronald Terry

21 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 1994

The district court's conclusion is not clearly erroneous. 54 B. … Section 3E1.1 states in pertinent part: 56 If the defendant clearly qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a), the offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater, and the defendant

Steven Woodward v. Raymond D'Onofrio

674 F. App'x 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 27, 2017

After the district court denied the officer’s motion for summary judgment raising qualified immunity, the officer filed this interlocutory appeal. … D’Onofrio moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Cedric Lamont Lacey v. Michigan Department of Corrections Kenneth L. McGinnis Denise Cole Sherri Andrews

89 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 1996

In his objections to the report recommending dismissal of the claims against defendants Andrews and Cole, Lacey maintained that the legal mail in question was "clearly marked Attorney Client" and that pieces of mail were … Further, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the contours of Lacey's alleged constitutional right to have his legal mail opened in his presence were not sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Owens v. Guida

549 F.3d 399 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 2008

While the state courts offered only a truncated analysis, they did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. … A rule of federal law cannot be clearly established when it has been rejected by every court that has been asked to adopt the rule, and a state court does not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it rejects

Pasley v. Robinson

71 F. App'x 532 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 6, 2003

Ill Sixth Amendment Violations Pasley argues that the introduction of certain hearsay statements made by his co-defendant, Darren Higgins, admitted through Sergeant McCarty’s testimony, violated clearly established Supreme … The government argues that even if the trial judge’s determinations resulted in a violation of clearly established federal law, any resulting error was harmless.

Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Mich.

751 F.3d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2014

In Seaway, however, we qualified our holding by Nos. 13-1773/1859 Hi-Lex Controls, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich. … Page 6 paychecks and sent to BCBSM to pay claims and administrative costs qualify as plan assets.2 See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Advisory Op.

Eady v. Morgan

515 F.3d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2008

Under that statute, we can disagree with a state court’s legal determination only when it was “a decision that was contrary to ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” … “A state-court decision will certainly be contrary to [the Supreme Court’s] clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases.”

Higuchi International Corp v. Autoliv ASP, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 29, 2024

Page 10 qualifying, ambiguous language that muddles any of Autoliv’s potential obligations to buy parts from Higuchi. … Importantly, for Autoliv to succeed on the merits, it must show that the purchase orders, on their face, clearly and precisely establish the set share of its requirements that it must purchase from Higuchi.

Clock Electric, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

162 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 1998

If a prima facie ease is established, the burden then shifts to the employer to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision even in the absence of protected activity. … The Board held that “[pjhotographing and videotaping clearly constitute more than ‘mere observation’ because such pictorial recordkeeping tends to create fear among employees of future reprisals.” Id.

Pennycuff v. Fentress Cnty Bd Ed

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2005

They include the requirement that a teacher must complete a three-year probationary period in order to qualify for tenure. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-503(2)(C). Tenn. … “First, a party’s later position must be ‘clearly inconsistent’ with its earlier position.” Id. (quoting United States v. Hook, 195 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 1999)).

United States v. Kevin Loren Daniels

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 7, 2026

The Supreme Court has established several other subsidiary ground rules for establishing whether a suspect’s waiver passes muster. Suspects need not expressly waive their Miranda rights (whether orally or in writing). … We have repeatedly suggested that this test in the instructional context requires a challenger to show that the jury charge, taken as a whole, was “so clearly erroneous as to likely produce a grave miscarriage of justice.

United States v. Mansour W. Saikaly

207 F.3d 363 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 23, 2000

“A court’s factual findings in relation to the application of Sentencing Guidelines are subject to a deferential ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of review. … The adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.

United States v. Crisp

110 F. App'x 559 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2004

Cox, however, qualified for the “safety valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f), which permits the district court to sentence below the statutory minimum. … The testimony presented to the jury, which the jury chose to credit, is sufficient to establish that she did. VI.

United States v. Jerry Fawaz

881 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 1989

One question clearly presented by this record is whether the understatements are material to the income-tax returns on which they appear. … Fawaz argues that this testimony was speculative and that it was expert testimony elicited from a fact witness never qualified as an expert. We disagree.

Peter Neuber, M.D., Cross-Appellee v. Tawas St. Joseph Hospital, a Michigan Corporation, Michael L. Jones, George Schaiberger, Jr., M.D., Cross-Appellants

944 F.2d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 12, 1991

Neuber's allegations of defamation but also found the defendants to have qualified immunity against suit. … He cannot, therefore, overcome defendants' statutory qualified immunity. 6 Accordingly, we hereby affirm the judgment of the district court. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. * The Honorable Eugene E.

Eliseo Cayabyab Beltran v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service

332 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 2003

Hence, the WCNLS representative was not technically qualified to represent Bel-tran. … Section 309(c)(4)(G) clearly refers to the original § 241(a)(2)(A) (the new § 237(a)(2)(A)) because § 241(a)(2) no longer exists. Also, this change affected the section’s codification within the United States Code.

William J. Karl v. Bryant Air Conditioning Company and Carlysle Compressor Company, Defendants

705 F.2d 164 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 13, 1983

Rule Four Cases The case law development of rule four establishes the corollary to the general proscription found in rule three. … Section 2949 is *175 not a legal bar, but is a principle established by the Legislature which mitigates damages in products liability actions.