Case law

Richard A. Vaughn, Dds, P.C. v. Fred Baldwin v. John Doe, Mary Roe

940 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 1991

Defendant's motion for summary judgment, filed on September 1, 1989, alleged that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and that the action was barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity … immunity defense did not support dismissal since a genuine issue of fact existed regarding whether Baldwin encouraged or instigated an illegal search.

United States v. Lawson

780 F.2d 535 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 1985

The indictment, however, clearly charges Paula Luke as involved with her husband in a wide-ranging conspiratorial enterprise to fence stolen property. … Barker, 553 F.2d 1013, 1024 (6th Cir.1977) (general experience can qualify witness as expert).

Henry Ford Health System (95-6173) v. National Labor Relations Board

105 F.3d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 1997

Although a pre-election agreement is a binding contract between the parties, see Dacas Nursing Support Sys., Inc., 7 F.3d at 513 , “[e]ven if the pre-election stipulation clearly indicates which employees are eligible to … Thus, even if an employer and a union agree that certain employees qualify as statutory guards, the legal standard ultimately controls that determination.

West Point Manufacturing Company v. Detroit Stamping Company

222 F.2d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 26, 1955

clearly indicated to the public that the clamps were manufactured by it, and were not the product of appellee’s manufacture. … “Unfair competition is not established by proof of similarity in form, dimensions, or general appearance alone.

William Andrew Wright v. Stephen Spaulding

939 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2019

From the beginning, § 2255 was qualified by a saving clause—in non-legalese, an “unless.” … A legal conclusion that is necessary to the judgment qualifies.

Bowman v. Corr Corp of Amer

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 2003

party must establish the degree of specificity and frequency There is no such error here. … only look at the first argument, for this issue is clearly moot inevitable result.

Betkerur v. Aultman Hospital Ass'n

78 F.3d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 15, 1996

Magoon, a white, American-born neonatologist, was appointed Director of Neonatology over the better-qualified Appellant based on Appellant’s race and Indian origin. … Under the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine framework, Appellant established a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she applied for and was qualified for the position

Edward N. Carlton v. Ronald Herschel

924 F.2d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 1991

The magistrate also found however that defendant was entitled to either good faith or qualified immunity because he could rely on the advice of the hospital attorney and the command of the police who were acting pursuant … The district court disagreed with the magistrate's determination that defendant was acting under color of law and with the magistrate's finding that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity.

45 Fair empl.prac.cas. 752, 45 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,623, 2 indiv.empl.rts.cas. 1239 Joseph F. Falls v. The Sporting News Publishing Company Richard Waters and Tom Barnidge

834 F.2d 611 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 15, 1988

They also claim that the statements fall under the common law fair comment privilege. 19 At common law, an expression of opinion could be defamatory, although certain opinions on matters of public concern could qualify as … pure type of opinion may also occur when the maker of the comment does not express the facts on which he bases his opinion, but both parties to the communication know the facts or assume their existence and the comment is clearly

United States v. Emad Al-Zubaidy

283 F.3d 804 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2002

Analysis Defendant argues that the United States failed to establish at the bench trial that he had crossed state lines with the intent to injure or harass Al-Shimary. … Even if the reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to Al-Shimary does not qualify in this case because of the two month delay, her reasonable fear for her family does. Id.

American Transit Lines v. Ralph R. Smith

246 F.2d 86 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 1957

At the trial Medovic qualified his testimony by stating that a lot of times he “didn’t even check with them." … Under the well-established rule the existence of control is proved, not oWy by its exercise, but also by the right of exercise. Defendant put on no other witnesses except Medovic and his testimony was not denied.

Chrysler International Corporation v. Cherokee Export Company

134 F.3d 738 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 1998

Chrysler was essentially using CEC to establish a “foothold” in the specified export markets. Its stated goal was eventually to create a worldwide network of distributors. … The essential purpose of the contract between CEC and Chrysler was to establish the Chrysler brand in developing markets.

United States v. J. Richard Jamieson

427 F.3d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 28, 2005

As Jamieson explained, an individual with AIDS could answer falsely on insurance applications, indicating that he had no serious illnesses, and thus qualify for the life insurance. … Shortly after Jamieson was indicted, the trial court appointed two qualified defense attorneys to represent him.

Gibbs v. United States

655 F.3d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2011

Specifically, Gibbs argues that this court’s Montanez opinion establishes his “actual innocence of being a career offender.” … Given this evidence, Gibbs cannot clearly and convincingly establish that he was ineligible for the 360-month sentence he received.

Stumpf v. Houk

653 F.3d 426 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2011

Lane clearly bars the retroactive application of the majority’s new constitutional right to Stumpf. See 489 U.S. 288, 306 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). … Significantly, the majority’s rule is not clearly established Supreme Court precedent, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), and post-AEDPA habeas petitioners are therefore unable to avail themselves of it, regardless of whether the

Sylvester Marx v. Centran Corporation

747 F.2d 1536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 1984

The Comptroller’s regulations clearly established that the two types of indebtedness involved in this case, Fedéral Funds Purchased and Repos, were not to be regarded as debts subject to the limitations of § 82. 12 C.F.R. … The regulation establishes a flexible standard of “prudent banking judgment.”

Ronald Post v. Margaret Bradshaw

422 F.3d 419 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 13, 2005

A motion that seeks to add a new ground for [habeas] relief ... will of course qualify. … See, e.g., Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (noting that to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, claimant must establish deficient performance and prejudice).

Liri Norek Marku v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General Immigration and Naturalization Service

380 F.3d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

INS, 182 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir.1999) (suggesting that, although largely irrelevant in a mixed motive case, evidence of a nonpolitical motivation is clearly relevant where the BIA finds substantial evidence that the only … To qualify for withholding of deportation, an applicant must show a "clear probability of persecution,” which is a stricter standard than the "well-founded fear” standard that applies with respect to applications for asylum

United States v. Steven Tilden Fellmy

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 23, 2026

So a movant seeking exclusion must establish more than a mere “possibility” that the evidence has been tampered with. Id. Fellmy hasn’t shown that here. … In response, the official would raise government immunity as a defense. And to defeat that immunity, the plaintiff would argue that the official had violated the Fourth Amendment.

Terry Anderson v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp

443 F. App'x 58 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2011

Swift is likely qualified to treat osteonecrosis of the jaw and could likely give an expert opinion regarding some issues relating to osteonecrosis of the jaw. However, this does not establish Dr. … Page 11 The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Thomas, Melau, and Anderson each failed to establish that their treating physicians were qualified to give expert opinions on the cause