Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.84s
Govindbhai Patel v. Loretta Lynch
830 F.3d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 30, 2016
Govindbhai Patel contends that the BIA’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that he is removable under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he entered without inspection to establish … or she is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted to the United States and is not inadmissible as charged.”
Cited 3 timesUnpublished622 F.3d 613 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2010
Deloitte responds by arguing that Winget was clearly the sole actor because he was the CEO and sole shareholder of Venture. … This exception was most clearly articulated in In re Sharp International Corp., 278 B.R. 28, 39 (Bankr.
Cited 47 timesPublished961 F.2d 1576 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 11, 1992
immunity with respect to Madry's claims. … In August 1989, this court vacated the district court's ruling on the qualified immunity issue. See Crutcher v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 883 F.2d 502 (6th Cir.1989).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMichigan Bell Telephone Co. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, Inc.
323 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 10, 2003
The Sixth Circuit has clearly recognized that a federal court exercising jurisdiction under § 252 may review a state commission’s determination for compliance with federal law. … However, as state commissions have emphasized, they have Eleventh Amendment immunity against state law claims brought in federal court. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.
Cited 5 timesPublished369 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2004
To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified for … that he failed to state a claim based on the deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right. 39 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a civil cause of action for individuals who are deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities
Cited 0 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2003
actions occurred—actions that, if shown, would be clearly illegal. Q. … This establishes that Himmel complained of that the driver does indeed sound intoxicated.
Cited 0 timesPublished382 F.2d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 1967
Although she claims she met the judge, she qualifies her identification by stating that she knows he is the same person whom she saw on television and whose picture she had seen in a newspaper. … In our opinion, these findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous. In denying the third motion, the District Judge did not abuse his discretion.
Cited 45 timesPublished902 F.2d 35 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 10, 1990
V 22 Defendants Compton, Miliara, and Hodge, the members of the hearing panel, claim the benefit of the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was not clearly established, in January 1980, that there was anything constitutionally … Under Hudson, the defendants in the case at bar were clearly entitled to qualified immunity. 24 Although the form of the report was sufficient to pass constitutional muster in 1980, the plaintiff contends that he never received
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRoetter v. Michigan Department of Corrections
456 F. App'x 566 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 23, 2012
Roetter could not establish that he was otherwise qualified to serve as an MDOC food services leader with the previously approved accommodation of working at night. … His job description, as attached to the MDOC’s motion for summary judgment, clearly establishes that security duties were part of his employment and thus an essential function.
Cited 5 timesUnpublishedLee Ann Tincher v. Larry Owsley
500 F. App'x 468 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2012
“Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages suits arising out of the performance of their official duties . . . .” Salehpour v. … Appellant’s statement that Defendants Owsley and Ramsey affirmed her termination does not establish facial plausibility of a constitutional violation.
Cited 2 timesUnpublishedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2007
A state-court decision is considered “contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law” if it is “diametrically different, opposite in character or nature, or mutually opposed.” Williams v. … Because the Michigan Court of Appeals decision did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, I believe that the district court was not authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMcLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools Board of Education
320 F.3d 663 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 24, 2003
They noted in the dissenting report that Emma qualified for the resource room because her needs did not require more than half of her instructional day in special education, which was the cutoff for allowing the delivery … It is clearly established that the McLaughlins bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the IEP devised by Holt Public Schools is inappropriate. See Dong v. Board of Educ. of Rochester Cmty.
Cited 3 timesPublishedUnited States ex rel. McKenzie v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc.
123 F.3d 935 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 1997
Therefore, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1458 (6th Cir.1991). III. … McKenzie’s claims are clearly “based upon” public disclosures.
Abrogated on other grounds by U.S. ex rel. Azam Rahimi v. Rite Aid Corp., 3 F.4th 813 (2021)Cited 56 timesPublishedDonald Aldridge v. City of Memphis
404 F. App'x 29 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2010
That being the case, demoting employees of a particular seniority status for cost-saving and operational considerations surely qualifies as well. … Accordingly, Godwin is immune from personal liability for inducing plaintiffs’ demotions, and the district court correctly so held.
Cited 47 timesUnpublishedUnited States v. Barron Wimbley
349 F. App'x 54 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2009
The distinction makes a difference, Wimbley says, because he would not have qualified for treatment as a career offender under the earlier guidelines. … To establish “a common scheme or plan,” a defendant must show that “his crimes were jointly planned or the commission of one entailed the commission of the other,” not that he stumbled into the same government undercover
Cited 3 timesUnpublishedKathleen Wierengo v. Akal Security, Inc.
580 F. App'x 364 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 10, 2014
We agree with the district court and hold that Wierengo has failed to establish her prima facie case. First, Wierengo has not shown that she was qualified for either promotion. … Even assuming Wierengo can establish the first four elements of a hostile-work-environment claim, Wierengo cannot establish the fifth element.
Cited 23 timesUnpublishedSofco Erectors, Inc. v. Trustees of the Ohio Operating Eng'rs Pension Fund
15 F.4th 407 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 28, 2021
Because Sofco had failed to “establish that the Fund’s determination was unreasonable or clearly erroneous,” the district court upheld the Fund’s determination. Id. … Here, the CBA clearly establishes Local 18’s jurisdiction over forklift work and Sofco’s obligations to contribute to the fund for that work.
Cited 14 timesPublished652 F. App'x 442 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 2016
The district court therefore properly determined that Abrams qualified as a fifth participant in the criminal activity. … supplier also qualified as participants.
Cited 3 timesUnpublished551 F.2d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 1977
Yet Congress gave no indication, in passing the Rivers and Harbors Act, that it intended to alter or qualify the 1851 Act. 17 In the congressional failure to connect these two statutes, we find at least some evidence that … The District Court erred in allowing the United States to file suit separately outside the established limitation proceeding by ignoring the well established principle of bringing all admiralty claimants following a maritime
Cited 0 timesPublishedAshland, Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.
648 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 2011
Finally, some of the alleged misstatements are too vague to qualify as material. … To prevail on a claim of common-law fraud, a plaintiff must establish, by clear and convincing No. 10-5305 Ashland, Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co.
Cited 81 timesPublished
Ask Donna