Case law

R. Paul Beard and Scarlett Beard v. Carrollton Railroad and Csx Transportation, Inc., (88-5910) the Travelers and the Travelers Companies, (88-6280)

893 F.2d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 1990

The plaintiffs’ memorandum stated that their proofs would establish that Mr. Beard’s former supervisor had developed a personal animosity against the plaintiffs after Mrs. … one point in its opinion, indeed, the Thermtron Court declared that “only remand orders issued under § 1447(c) and invoking the grounds specified therein — that removal was improvident and *121 without jurisdiction — are immune

John L. Lewis, Charles A. Owen and Josephine Roche, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. Benedict Coal Corporation, United Mine Workers of America, and United Mine Workers of America, District 28 v. Benedict Coal Corporation

259 F.2d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 26, 1958

The calling of a strike was clearly one way to 'settle' a labor dispute, although a way not permitted by the agreement. … to calculate the amount of loss attributable to each strike, and apparently accepted by the jury, was clearly erroneous.

United States v. Fayez Damra

621 F.3d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 15, 2010

He also admitted that Fawaz was not qualified to be an AIM consultant, but that Fawaz deserved the money he was paid. … [T]he witness testified clearly that Mr.

Prevent USA Corp. v. Volkswagen AG

17 F.4th 653 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 2021

Countries that have jurisdiction over the defendant typically qualify. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 254 n.22. … But the reality that the foreign venue makes it more difficult to establish the claim or that the foreign law is less generous to prevailing plaintiffs does not establish unavailability. See, e.g., id. at 249, 255.

Ronald Wolfe, Jr. v. Allan Perry

412 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 2005

Thus, the complaint asserts an unconstitutional-search claim, which was clearly defective at the outset of the case. … Moreover, aside from the lack of a factual basis, the claims against Rose would be barred by prosecutorial immunity, because all the allegations against Rose arise from his duties as county prosecutor.

Dye v. Hofbauer

45 F. App'x 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2002

“A federal habeas court making the unreasonable application inquiry should ask whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.” Williams v. … “[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because the court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established law erroneously or incorrectly.

Sherman Greene v. King James Coal Mining, Inc.

575 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 30, 2009

Sept. 29, 1994). 10 Clearly, Greene did not present any objections to the adequacy of Dr. … Briney examined Cline was interpreted positively by the Department’s qualified reader. However, Dr.

United States v. Jesse D. Blalark, Jr.

23 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 1994

The United States apparently had intended to rely on Blalark's testimony to establish Jones's presence at the Fifth Third Bank robbery; there were no other eye-witnesses who could establish Jones's presence there. 9 A January … A defendant may be awarded a two-level reduction if he "clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense." U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(a).

Butterfield v. Miller

195 F. 200 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 1912

We think the jurisdiction is as "clear as for the establishment of a *203 lost deed or a lost power of attorney. … This evidence was extraneous to the record, and was clearly incompetent to impeach the decree. Walker v. Cottrell, 6 Baxt.

Kevin R. Wright v. Mary Lou Sweeton

41 F.3d 1509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 14, 1994

Defendant responds that plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact remaining for trial with respect to his Eighth Amendment claim and that she is entitled to qualified immunity. 5 A grant of summary judgment … Accordingly, summary judgment for defendant on this basis was proper, and defendant's claim that she is entitled to qualified immunity need not be addressed. 7 Therefore, the motion for counsel is denied, and the judgment

United States v. Todd Allen Stafford

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 2026

This is clearly prohibited by FRE 412. … In the criminal context, intent has a well-established meaning.

United States v. Stonerock

363 F. App'x 338 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2010

As the Government points out, under the Commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the two-level firearm enhancement “should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the … U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 provides in pertinent part: Acceptance of Responsibility (a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels.

Kenneth R. Smoot v. United Transportation Union Csx Transportation, Inc.

246 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 2001

Elswick informed Plaintiff that he did not qualify for the shares because he was not in active service as a trainman as of November 30, 1991, a required condition, according to Elswick, for distribution of CSX shares under … Absher, 179 F.3d 420 (6th Cir.1999), § 2520(c)(2)(B) establishes a “single-sum” $10,000 statutory award per claimant; (ii) under Nix v.

United States v. Dylan Marshall

736 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 2013

Forgac’s observation that Marshall functioned as a juvenile is clearly belied by the reality that Marshall attended college, worked a full-time job, and owned a car and credit card. … Because Marshall is not a juvenile, he does not qualify for the Eighth Amendment protections accorded to juveniles.

Commissioners of Sewerage of Louisville v. Davis

88 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 1937

The contract clearly provided for payment upon a linear foot basis. There was no classification of materials. … In addition to Caye’s testimony on the point, the Commission offered the testimony of several other well qualified witnesses.

United States v. Heath

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 2008

The court concluded that the document did not qualify as a fictitious financial instrument within the meaning of the statute because the face of the document stated that it was “not negotiable.” … the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly

Donna Cockrel v. Shelby County School District

270 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2001

While Judge Milburn’s analysis in Fowler is not binding on this court, even if it were, the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from Foivler. … We are well aware that Cockrel’s decision to speak cannot immunize her from an adverse employment decision arising out of inappropriate workplace behavior unrelated to her protected speech.

Coffey v. Dowley Manufacturing, Inc.

89 F. App'x 927 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 2003

One could generate this amount of force with his or her hands, and it is clearly not sufficient to break the bolts. That Dr. Wilson did not immediately recognize this shows his inexperience with the subject matter. … In this case, as already discussed, expert testimony was required in order to establish that a defect in the tool caused Mr. Coffey’s injuries. For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s opinion is AFFIRMED. . Dr.

United States v. Miller

48 F. App'x 933 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2002

“A sentencing decision based on race qualifies as both a violation of law and an incorrect application of the Guidelines, and therefore can be reviewed by this court.” United States v. … The reference to race by the district court in this case clearly does not come close to being improper. II.

Howard v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2008

In that decision, we suggested that convictions for the violation of former § 2925.03(A)(4) of the Ohio Code, such as Howard’s, do not qualify as predicate “controlled substance offenses.” Id. at 491-93. … Yet it appears clearly that this is just such a case.