Case law

Fautenberry v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 25, 2008

Instead, we must find that “the state court’s application of clearly established federal law [was] objectively unreasonable.” Cone, 535 U.S. at 694. … R. 26(B) was clearly established and Fautenberry was or should have been apprised of its existence.

Manuel Guzman-Vazquez v. William P. Barr

959 F.3d 253 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2020

likelihood of persecution, “an alien who fails to qualify for asylum necessarily does not qualify for withholding of removal.” … asylum eligibility, an alien who fails to qualify for asylum necessarily does not qualify for withholding of removal.”

Paul CUMMINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PARKER SEAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

516 F.2d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 23, 1975

Accordingly, the District Court’s finding is clearly erroneous and cannot stand. Parmer v. National Cash Register Co., 503 F.2d 275, 277 (6th Cir. 1974). … the question does arise, however, we think that it will require no more government involvement in religion than the concededly nonexcessive entanglement that occurs when a state must determine whether a purported church qualifies

Gerber v. Riordan

649 F.3d 514 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2011

On the other hand, the term “general appearance” still appears in some cases in the context of personal-jurisdiction challenges, although a precise definition of exactly what qualifies as a general appearance is not provided … "In contrast to general, all-purpose jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.”

CNA Insurance v. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co.

747 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2014

Clearly, the validity of these points does not turn on whether the shipment was an import or an export. … “[T]o the extent a third-party qualifies as an intended beneficiary, it may enforce contract terms in its favor.”

Kaba v. Mukasey

546 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2008

Furthermore, the court found that the administrative record did “not clearly establish a nexus on which this Court could find that any of the harm that [Kaba] underwent, or his family underwent, was due to a protected ground … 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.

Allen Randy McClain v. Lake County, Ohio Daniel A. Dunlap, Sheriff Frank Leonbruno, Administrator Burney Puzar, Chaplain

97 F.3d 1452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 25, 1996

In the case at bar, the record establishes that Chaplain Pular was not in a position similar to the chaplain in Phelps. … It does not appear, however, that qualified immunity was the basis for the district court's decision in this context.

Estate of Mingus v. Lombardo (In Re Lombardo)

262 F. App'x 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 1, 2008

Zipperstein, 512 N.E.2d 636 (Ohio 1987), in which the Supreme Court of Ohio held: It is by now well-established in Ohio that an attorney may not be held liable by third parties as a result of having performed … Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 872 N.E.2d 254, 258 (Ohio 2007) (noting the holding in Scholler and Simon that “attorneys have a qualified immunity from liability to third parties for acts or omissions concerning the representation

United States v. Lawrence

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 11, 2009

That most jurors found the factor not established clearly indicates that they did not view the established fact of Lawrence’s humanity as carrying, in and of itself, any mitigating weight. … Here, too, the bottom line verdicts on the two counts are clearly unanimous.

75 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1011, 72 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,097 Marilyn L. Hudson v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, and United States Department of Justice

130 F.3d 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 10, 1998

It is well-established that "[t]he lower court's determination that an indefinite number of hours claimed by Plaintiffs are excessive or duplicative is a finding of fact, which is to be affirmed unless clearly erroneous." … However, as other courts have observed this case fails to recognize the bedrock principle that courts must strictly construe waivers of immunity in favor of the sovereign and not enlarge the waiver beyond what the language

United States v. 150 Acres of Land, More or Less, Located in Medina County, Ohio,defendant-Appellant

204 F.3d 698 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 20, 2000

In addition to establishing the foregoing, the defendant must establish that he has satisfied the requirements of section 9607(b)(3)(a) and (b) of this title. … However, the particular inquiry that is necessary under the statutory definition is clearly dependent on the totality of the circumstances.

Ramon Jasso Arangure v. Matthew Whitaker

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 2018

The common-law presumption canon qualifies as a “traditional tool” of statutory interpretation. This canon presumes that the existing common law still applies unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise. … Whitaker Page 15 The government apparently does not dispute the latter two elements, and they are clearly met here.

Estate Of Kenneth Stewart Riddle

421 F.3d 400 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 2005

[the] post-judgment interest rate is established by the state law, which in this case would be 12% per annum." … Expert medical testimony revealed that psoriatric arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis are both auto-immune diseases; they share the same symptoms; and they are routinely confused with one another, even by medical experts,

729, INC. v. Kenton County Fiscal Court

515 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 6, 2008

The County clearly had the power both to enact this Ordinance and to make the Ordinance effective within Covington’s borders. … Commensurately, the government’s decision to incur expenditures is generally immune from legal challenge by the taxpayers. Cf . Hein v.

United States v. Tyren Cervenak

135 F.4th 311 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 2, 2025

Nor do the other cases the government cites establish such a default. … Whether these qualify as “misappropriation” is certainly a closer call than whether “theft” qualifies.

Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta

375 F.3d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2004

The remaining category of Class III actions injunction that stated: encompasses those actions “in which the significance of the environmental impact is not clearly established.” 23 C.F.R. … Similarly, this court to the matters addressed in the [FCC’s] orders”) . . . ; qualified its recognition of an agency’s inherent authority to Wilkett v.

United States v. Franks

98 F. App'x 483 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 27, 2004

The district court’s admission of the evidence in question does not qualify as plain error. … “A mere buyer-seller relationship alone is not sufficient to establish a conspiracy.” Brown, 332 F.3d at 373 .

United States v. William Howard Newman

889 F.2d 88 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 1989

The government argues 1) that Newman’s claim raises a non-justiciable, political question which this Court ought not consider, and 2) that were it to entertain Newman’s claim, the Court should find that § 3013 neither qualifies … This directive provides, clearly, only for a contingency: should § 3013 generate excess funds, then they will be deposited in the general fund.

In the Matter of John Ruffalo, Jr

370 F.2d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 29, 1966

“In our opinion, one who believes that it is proper to employ and pay another to work against the interests of his regular employer is not qualified to be a member of the Ohio Bar. … He is even less qualified if he does so, when he knows, as the evidence clearly indicates Ruffalo did know, that it is improper to do so.” 176 Ohio St. 269 , 199 N.E.2d 401 .

Varhola v. Doe

820 F.2d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 1987

Thus, our earlier decisions establishing the arbitrary and capricious standard still control. … To the extent, if any, that plaintiffs base their claim on state law, they clearly are not entitled to such damages. The Supreme Court recently held in Pilot Life Ins. Co. v.