Case law

White v. Commissioner of Social Security

572 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 13, 2009

If you assume that, what jobs would our hypothetical Claimant be vocationally qualified to perform? … Rieger, 150 F.3d 561, 568 (6th Cir.1998) (refusing to consider a qualified-immunity challenge because the defendant failed to bring it to the attention of the district court).

United States v. Michael Davis (96-5895) and Miles Jones (96-5905)

170 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 22, 1999

The record establishes that Defendant Davis’ conduct inflicted extensive psychic injury on his telemarketing victims. … This Court concludes that the above facts clearly establish that the tape of Jones’ conversation with Ms. Christian was admissible under both Fed.R.Evid. 803(6), and 801(d)(2), *627 respectively.

Edward Williams v. Donald Schismenos

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 13, 2018

In similar cases we have recognized that such evidence “does not establish that the officers failed to disclose evidence to the prosecutor. … Finally, Schismenos and Leeser are entitled to immunity from Williams’s state-law claims.

Local 1330, United Steel Workers of America, and Frank Georges v. United States Steel Corporation

631 F.2d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 1980

In lieu of severance allowance, the Company may offer an eligible employee a job, in at least the same job class for which he is qualified, in the same general locality. … The District Judge’s rejection of any formal legal contract claims was clearly mandated by both state and federal contract law.

Sandy Sykes v. United States

507 F. App'x 455 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 29, 2012

February 6, 2004, Muir was enrolled in human research studies or clinical drug trials at the VA and UCMC for the treatment of hepatitis C in veterans, and was enrolled to participate in the studies even though he did not qualify … Finally, Sykes has not cited any cases to establish that there is a private cause of action under the Declaration of Helsinki.

Marmion Pollard v. United States

282 F.2d 450 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 6, 1960

It appeared that none of the witnesses was either acquainted with the defendant or aware of his previous conduct or behavior; they were not asked to express opinions as to his mental condition and were not qualified to do … as conclusively as it is possible to establish insanity in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred.”

Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Secretary of Ohio

695 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2012

The potential impact of our construction is merely to incentivize prudent parties to exercise care in drafting settlement agreements and encourage them to ensure that the language they choose clearly indicates whether they … It appears that the supplemental fee award granted in Weisenberger would likely exceed the three percent cap established in Coulter . The cases were decided without trial, see Milburn v.

Bates v. Bell

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 23, 2005

Makowski, 291 F.3d 447, 453-54 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting that habeas relief is only appropriate if there “was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law”); see also Millender v. … Because we are bound to apply clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, the majority’s reliance upon the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in DePew is improper under AEDPA.

United States v. James Elkins Carol Elkins, United States of America v. Carol Elkins James Elkins

300 F.3d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

This finding was not clearly erroneous, so the statement remains. … The Elkinses, however, argue that the choice of a reasonable level of attorneys’ fees to exempt from civil forfeiture implicates their qualified Sixth Amendment right to criminal counsel of choice, see, e.g., United States

Sutherland v. MI Dept Treas

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2003

The movant has the burden of establishing that there Appellants. … That minimum requirement was clearly set forth reason for their employment decision was pretextual.

Perlean Griffin v. Carleton Finkbeiner

689 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 2012

After briefing and two hearings on the issue, the district court was clearly familiar with the substance of the evidence and the arguments for and against its admissibility. … “To show plain error, a defendant must establish the following: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’” United States v.

United States v. James E. Fife, United States of America v. Alvin Klein

573 F.2d 369 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 1976

However, at the time the evidence was admitted there had been a great deal of testimony concerning arson and the identification of Merrill Klein as an arsonist was clearly relevant. … Alford establishes the rule that counsel for a defendant is not required to show, or even know, what he expects to prove on cross-examination.

United States v. Township Of Brighton

153 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 1998

Second, it contends that it did not exercise sufficient control over the site to qualify as a liable "operator" under CERCLA. … Taken literally, this is clearly incompatible with the principle of divisibility Meyer establishes just above.

Anderson v. Mills

664 F.2d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 1981

; and that the subscribers desire, and are legally qualified, to vote for the candidate. … Rather, it has recognized the differences between established well-financed parties/candidates, and those candidates and parties who have no elaborate political network.

Wayside Farm, Inc. v. United States Department Of Health & Human Services

863 F.2d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 13, 1988

(emphasis added). 14 Here, a decision was made that Wayside no longer qualified as an intermediate care facility. … based on corrective steps to bring Wayside into conformity, plaintiff appealed administratively to the Appeals Council and instituted an action in district court to enjoin implementation of the Secretary's actions which was clearly

Munaim J. Dawood-Haio v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

800 F.2d 90 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 5, 1986

By form letter dated July 7, 1981, the Chief of the Asylum Division replied that petitioner “does not appear to qualify for asylum.” … As we read the record in this case, petitioner clearly made out a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum as a refugee, and I.N.S. never articulated a rational basis for determining that petitioner is not, in fact,

United States v. William J. Davis

397 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 21, 2005

Thus, we will proceed with our analysis under established plain error law. … And while that’s not sufficient for a downward departure, in my opinion in this Court’s opinion, it qualifies for a sentence on the low end of the guideline range.

Hartman v. Bagley

492 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2007

A state-court decision is considered “contrary to ... clearly established federal law” if it is “diametrically different, opposite in character or nature, or mutually opposed.” Williams v. … Combined with the admitted consensual relationship between Hartman and Snipes, the evidence does not clearly establish that a rape occurred or that the restraint facilitated a rape.)

Olga Jad Kamar v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III

875 F.3d 811 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 2017

The Board overturned the IJ’s decision on August 3, 2012, finding that the overall adverse credibility finding was clearly erroneous. … The IJ found that Kamar failed to establish a viable social group for relief under her withholding of removal application.

United States v. Robert Alan Thomas (94-6648) and Carleen Thomas (94-6649)

74 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 1996

Some of these GIF files were clearly marked “Distribute Freely.” … To qualify for this reduction, Defendants were required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they had accepted responsibility for the crime committed. United States v.