Case law

Rushton v. City of Warren

90 F. App'x 912 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 2004

(2) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action, (3) the plaintiff was qualified for the position, and (4) the plaintiff was replaced by a younger person. … This notice clearly establishes jurisdiction over the district court’s summary judgment ruling.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Federal Trade Commission

101 F.2d 620 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 1939

If the second qualifies and limits the first, the word "quantity" in the first exception appears to be redundant. … Usually provisos find their way into statutes at the behest of persons who are unreasonably apprehensive as to their effect and by those who wish to obtain immunity from their terms.

United States v. Alan Louis Bashara

27 F.3d 1174 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 1994

Therefore, the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. … And that’s what I want to establish, and the only way I can see to do that is to have a trial. JA at 117-18 (emphasis added). .

Zomba Enter v. Panorama Records

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

Conversely, if the defendant establishes that infringement is innocent, the statutory-damage floor falls to $200. Id. B. … Page 9 the [District] Court or a finding by the [District] Court that Plaintiff has established . . . any . . . substantive element of its case.” J.A. at 202 (4/22/03 Dist. Ct. Order).

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co.

116 F. 363 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 1902

In the design patent to Coops, 1891, No. 20,678, is shown a design for a rubber tire which very clearly anticipates Grant’s peculiar shape, including his corner or angle. … The degree, then, of this new capacity is clearly dependent upon the normal tension of the retaining wires.

Weston Rayfield v. City of Grand Rapids

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2019

This includes whether the defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity. Id. … defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Stern v. City of Steubenville

137 F. App'x 820 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 2005

Ohio law establishes a three-tiered analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability for harm flowing from 5 dangerous conditions on public … Once an exception to immunity is found to apply, the political subdivision will be entitled to immunity only if it can establish one of the defenses found in R.C. § 2744.03.

Arkansas Coals, Inc. v. Albert Lawson

739 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2014

The claimant originally brought suit in 1992 and an administrative law judge determined that he was not medically qualified for benefits. … Even more tellingly, subsection (a)(2),4which is referenced by subsection (b)(2), is narrowly and clearly focused on when and how an operator may contest its identification to a director.

United States v. Certain Real Property 566 Hendrickson Boulevard, Clawson, Oakland County, Michigan, Leonard Willis, Claimant-Appellant

986 F.2d 990 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 1993

the res by virtue of issuing the search warrant that procured the seized funds and never relinquished that control to the DEA or any other agency or person____ Here, Louisiana’s statutory law, La. *995 C.Cr.P. art 167, clearly … Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, when a party fails to establish the essential elements of his defense, summary judgment is appropriate.

Rasimas v. Michigan Department of Mental Health

714 F.2d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 1983

The Finding of Discrimination: MDMH argues that the district court’s finding of sex discrimination is clearly erroneous. … Once a claimant establishes a prima facie case and presents evidence on the issue of damages, the burden of producing sufficient evidence to establish the amount of interim earnings or lack of diligence shifts to the defendant

United States v. John Franklin Miller, Sr.

797 F.2d 336 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 1986

Where probation is revoked and the original sentence or harsher sentence is imposed, revocation does not constitute punishment, nor does the revocation qualify as a repeat prosecution. … Rather, the government wished to establish that Miller was a poor probation risk.

Wilson v. Collins

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

.; whereas the privacy interests of a parolee or supervised releasee, which status represents “an established variation on imprisonment,” see Samson v. … Hence, even if we were free to depart from the precedent established in Conley, we have been presented no persuasive reason to do so.

Elaine Royse v. Reed Wilbers

669 F. App'x 296 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

Webb, however, was not a decision discussing absolute immunity, but was limited to determining whether the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on the ground of not having violated the plaintiffs’ established rights … In cases raising an absolute immunity issue, courts have followed Rehberg in concluding that, in claims for malicious prosecution based only on grand-jury testimony, absolute immunity applies. See Coggins v.

United States v. Lorne Semrau

693 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2012

In order to establish a violation of the healthcare fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1347, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. … Barnes’s services, at least as documented, were often insufficient to qualify under 90862, let alone the higher code 99312. The evidence did not show that Dr.

Herbert Derickson v. United States Dep't of Agriculture

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 10, 2008

Clearly, the JO did have substantial evidence to support his finding. … The terms of the Operating Plan clearly state that APHIS did not “relinquish[] any of its authority.”

United States v. Wayne County

369 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 2004

In 1994, municipalities could be held liable for basement flooding under the trespass-nuisance exception to governmental immunity. See Pohutski v. … Michigan’s new statutes and case law concerning reduced municipal liability do not legalize those discharges, do not make closing the River-view bypass impermissible and do not establish that the consent decree was based

United States v. Irvin Flemming

658 F. App'x 777 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 2, 2016

We begin by considering two common types of immunity agreements: (a) transactional- immunity agreements and (b) use-immunity agreements. … We disagree: the district court did not clearly err when it found that Flemming knew or should have known that Powell’s cash came from a narcotics conspiracy.

Dorothy Floyd v. United States Postal Service, Donald Harants, Postmaster

105 F.3d 274 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 4, 1997

If the language of the statute is unambiguous, absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, the language of the statute is ordinarily conclusive. Reves v. … By qualifying the clause to say that the offending statutes will not have further effect after the rule takes effect, the provision requires that the offending statute have some effect before the rule's enacting date.

United States v. William Sanders

404 F.3d 980 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 2005

Common Pleas case number 81CR11, and aggravated robbery in Trumbull County Common Pleas case number 83CR359,” but the record fails to indicate on what basis the district court concluded that these prior convictions were for qualifying … In any event, even if a presentence report could generally satisfy the requirements of Shepard and Taylor, which is doubtful, the presentence report in this case clearly does not; it fails to include even the most basic information

United States v. Hamad

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 362 (1977) (plurality) (qualifying Williams v. … Because Rule 32 does not clearly state that a district court sua sponte may depart upward from an applicable Guidelines sentencing range without providing notice to the defendant we decline to impute such an intention to