Case law

Walter L. Gross, Jr. And Barbara H. Gross (99-2239) Calvin C. Linnemann and Patricia G. Linnemann (99-2257) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

272 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 19, 2001

That Rule provides that “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, … I do not believe that this finding is clearly erroneous and in fact is well supported in the record.

Baltimore & O. R. v. United States

242 F. 1 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 8, 1917

While wc do not question that railroads should keep the statute in view even from the beginning of the trip, and that the immunity of the proviso may not safely rest upon the arbitrary or reckless disregard of the schedule … under such circumstances, it is important that the nature and extent of the legal duty should be most carefully explained to the jury, and any confusion or conflict in the instructions is much more difficult to regard as clearly

Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 14, 2006

Chen held that “[t]he term ‘constitutional claims’ clearly relates to claims brought pursuant to provisions of the Constitution of the United States.” 434 F.3d at 151. … , political opinion) required under the INA, but rather must establish a “particularized threat of torture.”

Peter Bormuth v. County of Jackson

870 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 6, 2017

According to Bormuth’s Amended Complaint, the Board appointed two other lesser-qualified individuals instead. Bormuth moved for summary judgment in December 2013. … A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applies the law, or uses an erroneous legal standard. Cummins v.

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.”

Chicago Title Insurance v. Magnuson

487 F.3d 985 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 21, 2007

Thus, we review the district court’s ruling on the Covenant’s reasonableness de novo, but accept the district court’s findings of fact unless they were clearly erroneous. 1. … In order to qualify as a lost volume seller, Chicago Title must prove that it had access to sufficient supply to make both sales and that it would have completed the additional sale even if it made the first sale.

United States v. Michael Leja and John M. Cody

563 F.2d 244 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 3, 1977

implanting an unlawful motive in an innocent mind does not rise to constitutional magnitude, it is difficult indeed to prohibit on constitutional grounds the prosecution of the defendants on these facts, where they were clearly … California, 342 U.S. 165, 169 , 72 S.Ct. 205 , 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952), that: 25 Due process of law is a summarized constitutional guarantee of respect for those personal immunities which, as Mr.

Roncker v. Walter

700 F.2d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 1983

These requirements clearly have been satisfied in this case. … Despite this preference for "mainstreaming," however, the statute clearly contemplates that there will be some separate schools and schooling.

Tristan Hall v. City of Williamsburg, Ky.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 2019

The district court determined that Hall failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution and therefore did not reach Baxter’s arguments on qualified immunity. … Sowders’s report established that Davis thought she was the intended target of the posting.

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 .

United States v. Lamonte Brown

131 F.4th 337 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 6, 2025

Namely, the government must establish that the dangerous weapon possession was within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity; in furtherance of that criminal activity; and reasonably foreseeable in connection … The court’s decision to count the conspiracy as a prior sentence—not relevant conduct—wasn’t clearly erroneous. Id.

Greg Curry v. David Scott

249 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 30, 2001

The plaintiffs who were dismissed for failure to exhaust (Chisolm, King, and Shorter) contend that: (1) it is unnecessary to exhaust “excessive force claims,” because “excessive force” does not qualify as a “prison condition … This Court has held definitively that none of the reasons plaintiffs propose to circumvent the prison’s administrative grievance procedures will qualify as, or excuse exhaustion under, § 1997e(a).

Jeffrey D. Brierly, Administrator of the Estate of Paul Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc. David Ellison

170 F.3d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 1999

Thus, in the interest of comity and federalism, federal jurisdiction should be exercised only when it is clearly established, and any ambiguity regarding the scope of § 1446(b) should be resolved in favor of remand to the … The defendants took many precautions, albeit clearly not enough, and placed Brierly farthest away from the washer in the “fire watch” line.

Hendrickson v. Apperson

238 F. 473 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 15, 1916

It is clearly to be inferred from the records in the instant cases, not to speak of the records in Tucker v. Hubbert and Graham v. … The other statute is entitled “An act to create and establish a system of public state roads and to provide for the construction and. maintenance thereof.” Acts 1914, pp. 440, 441; 2 Ky. Stat.

Bell v. Management & Training Corp.

122 F. App'x 219 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2005

Bell argues that MTC’s actions qualify as state action under the public function test. … As Bell was clearly a probationary employee, she has no property right in continued employment. C.

Bartling v. Fruehauf Corp.

29 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 1994

The documents requested included: (1) the Pension Plan; (2) the December 1986 amendment to the Plan; (3) the most recent favorable letter issued by the IRS relating to the tax-qualified status of the Plan; (4) filings with … “[Wjhere there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Bueno v.

Hedgepeth v. Tennessee

215 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 12, 2000

through a conjunction with the earlier version of the statute the form motion to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of suggests that the ultimate purpose of the assessment is to establishing … Rather, the definition of the term ‘tax’ is a clearly constitutes a regulatory fee rather than a tax.

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 encompasses those actions "in which the significance of the environmental impact is not clearly established." 23 C.F.R. § 771.115 (c). … Similarly, this court qualified its recognition of an agency's inherent authority to reconsider by referring to reconsiderations that occur "within a reasonable time." Belville, 999 F.2d at 997 .

Barry W. Ritchie v. Don Eberhart

11 F.3d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 22, 1994

Ritchie did not ratify the omission when he verified the pleading, the omission would clearly constitute “inexcusable neglect” incapable of serving as the kind of external “cause” sufficient to excuse a procedural default … But Congress did not qualify its "or otherwise” language in § 2244(b), and we have no more overlooked what Congress said than we have overlooked what the Supreme Court says Congress said.

United States v. Russell Jennings, Jr.

842 F.2d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 24, 1988

The government must prove four elements to establish a violation of section 1962(c) as follows: 1. the defendant engaged in an enterprise; 2. the enterprise affected interstate commerce; 3. the enterprise’s affairs were conducted … Moreover, the court rejected the argument that “acts which are part of the same scheme or transaction cannot qualify as distinct predicate acts.” Watchmaker, 656 F.2d at 1475 .