Case law

Brian Miller v. Blaine Lafler

505 F. App'x 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 14, 2012

A To establish a successful claim for relief under paragraph (d)(1), a petitioner must show that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law. … We cannot grant habeas on a claim that does not rest on a violation of “clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and a rule of law is not clearly established unless the Supreme Court has “squarely established

Stevenson v. Fain

116 F. 147 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 1902

The controlling words are “main ridge,” and qualify “extreme height.” … The marked difference between that case and this is, first, in the fact that the “main ridge” called for in the confirmatory acts of 1821 was far more clearly ascertained than in the present case; and, secondly, there was

Cook v. Caldera

45 F. App'x 371 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 2002

To do so, the employer must “clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiffs rejection.” Id. at 255 . … To establish race or gender discrimination, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is part of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the job; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) he was treated differently

Whaley v. County of Tuscola

58 F.3d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 12, 1995

The coroner’s office, pursuant to an established procedure, nevertheless removed Brother-ton’s corneas during the course of the autopsy. … Michigan common law clearly holds that the next of kin have the right to possess the body for burial.

Board of Trustees v. Kyle Moore

800 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

Defendant Kyle Moore qualified as a beneficiary of the NEI Plan through his father, who was a plan participant. … Moore notes that state court defendants disputed liability in the settlement agreement and postulates from this fact that no liability has been established. This argument is clearly unavailing.

Eugene Williams Gall, Jr. v. Phil Parker, Warden

231 F.3d 265 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 30, 2000

In stark contrast, Kentucky legislators established EED as an element of murder, and “clearly intended the prosecution to bear the risk of non-persuasion.” Bartrug, 568 S.W.2d at 926 . … This issue is clearly controlled by Kor-denbrock.

Dennis Dubuc v. Township of Green Oak

482 F. App'x 128 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 4, 2012

He also argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity for acts he took as counsel to the township. He argued that the township had issued permits for Dubuc’s land on September 5, 2008 and September 9, 2008. … The court clearly warned him at the time that he amended his complaint that sanctions might be warranted if his claim against Rosati turned out to be meritless.

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.

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.

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.

The United States of America v. Benjamin Levinson, Franklin Mortgage Corporation, Edward P. Strang, Jr., Ross Howard

405 F.2d 971 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 1968

It relieves the VA of the necessity of making a detailed and lengthy study of the loan application to see if it qualifies for a guaranty. … As indicated above such evidence was clearly admissible.

Kingsport Motors, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, Cross-Appellee

644 F.2d 566 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 1981

George Overend and Douglas Hess possessed technical and other specified knowledge which would assist the jury to understand the evidence and to determine the facts in issue herein, and that each of them was qualified by skill … We hold that Davis clearly failed to present sufficient evidence to permit a determination that the “total volume of sales tied by the sales policy under challenge” was not “insubstantial.” Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v.

John W. Byrd, Jr. v. Terry L. Collins, Warden

209 F.3d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 2000

We hold that it clearly does. B. … These statements clearly refer to the sentence Armstead received on March 15, 1983, following his guilty plea. .

United States v. Lanham

617 F.3d 873 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2010

The district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, Freeman’s sentence is AFFIRMED. 5. Freeman’s Brady Motion Under Brady v. … The 2008 Guidelines, in effect at time of sentencing, establish a higher base offense level for the offense of Criminal Sexual Abuse.

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

Tennessee Consolidated Coal Company v. Clarence O. Crisp, and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

866 F.2d 179 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 19, 1989

The AU invoked the interim presumption of total disability due to pneumoconio-sis based upon two qualifying ventilatory studies, 20 C.F.R. § 727.203 (a)(2), and then proceeded to review the evidence for rebuttal under section … These provisions clearly authorized the Secretary of Labor to apply prospectively the final regulations in 20 C.F.R. Part 718.

Spees v. James Marine, Inc.

617 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2010

It further determined that, although Spees established a prima facie case of discrimination regarding her termination, she was unable to show that JMI’s proffered justification for the firing—Dr. … And although Spees testified that she found the tool-room work to be as physically demanding as welding, both parties *399 clearly considered it to be light-duty work.

Linda Stermer v. Millicent Warren

959 F.3d 704 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2020

This framework provides the “clearly established Federal law” used to assess a state court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 45 (2012) (per curiam). … This is because “circuit precedent does not constitute ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,’ [and] therefore cannot form the basis for habeas relief under AEDPA.” Id.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America-Uaw and Uaw Local 155 v. Lasalle MacHine Tool, Inc.

696 F.2d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 29, 1982

Both letters contained the following language: It is the intention of La Salle Machine Tool to have machining performed by qualified companies at a competitive price. … We conclude that the dispute between the parties is clearly capable of repetition.

Peabody Coal Company v. Smith

127 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 7, 1997

In Adams, this court applied that language and held that "in order to qualify for benefits under Part 718, a miner, who is found to suffer from pneumoconiosis under section 718.202, must affirmatively establish only that … Anderson's opinion, therefore, had only marginal relevance, if any at all, to the question of causation, and Judge Gilday clearly put too much emphasis on it.