Case law

Earl Patton Coal Company v. Patton

848 F.2d 668 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 1988

The three regulations clearly preclude duplicate consideration of claims, and recognize a claimant's statutory right to select review by either the S.S.A. or the Department of Labor. … because he was president and owner of the company; (3) that the employer's evidence of other medical ailments did not rebut evidence that he was partially disabled by breathing problems, the evidence consisting of four qualifying

Northcross v. Board of Education

611 F.2d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 23, 1979

For the same reason, as we established in Oliver v. … Thus their entitlement to fees on this account is clearly demonstrated.

David Wilburn, Jr. v. United States

616 F. App'x 848 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

The duty is created once “the patient has communicated to the mental health professional an actual threat of physical violence against a clearly identified or reasonably identifiable victim.” Ky. Rev. … This duty is not subject to the intentional tort exception because it arises from a direct relationship that the Army established with Tracy independent of Burke’s employment relationship.

Katherine Russell v. Christopher Davis

522 F. App'x 314 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2013

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that no constitutional violation occurred and that alternatively they were protected by qualified immunity. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY CLAIMS Russell argues that, because they had been informed that Miller was likely to commit suicide, Officer Davis and Sergeant Brophey had a duty to take precautions to prevent an in-custody

Melvin Kindle v. City of Jeffersontown, KY

589 F. App'x 747 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 2014

immunity; and (4) the First -4- No. 13-6394 Kindle, et al. v. … immunity question; and (4) the Commission was a necessary party and should not have been dismissed as an entity that could not be sued.

United States v. Bullock

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

Rather, a district court can only apply the enhancement if the government “establish[es], by a preponderance of the evidence, a nexus between the firearm and an independent felony.” United States v. … qualifying federal offense of threatening to kill a Member of the United States Congress.

Von Clark Davis v. Charlotte Jenkins

79 F.4th 623 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

Jenkins Page 10 decisions to inform its analysis of whether a legal principle had been clearly established by the Supreme Court.” Avery v. … Jenkins Page 12 unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Rice v. White, 660 F.3d 242, 252 (6th Cir. 2011).

33 Fair empl.prac.cas. 238, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,890 Leonard Williams, Sr., Herbert Allison Paul Gains Richard S. Gresh Nicholas E. Modarelli John William Averhart, Jr. Ismael Caraballo, Jr. Objectors-Appellants v. George Vukovich Otis Coney, Sr. Stanley E. Peterson, Chief of Police Richard J. Groucutt, Administrator

720 F.2d 909 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 1983

First, the section promotes minorities, individuals who have failed the qualifying examination, "to positions for which they have demonstrated that they are not qualified...." … Yet, those examinations were clearly discriminatory and had an adverse impact on minorities. See 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1607.4(D).

United States v. Alonzo Bates

473 F. App'x 446 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 2, 2012

. § 2255 petition, we apply “‘a de novo standard of review of the legal issues and will uphold the factual findings of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous.’” Peveler v. … Ct. at 1395 (“No ‘clearly established’ precedent of this Court supports Smith’s claim that he can make out a prima facie case merely by pointing to a host of factors that, individually or in combination, might contribute

Moses v. Green

81 F.3d 160 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 20, 1996

Hopper is entitled to judicial immunity for monetary damages; and 4) Defendants Blondell, Irvin and Gorman are entitled to prosecutorial immunity. … Claims that lack an arguable or rational basis in law include claims for which the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist; claims that lack

Johnson v. Wolfe

44 F. App'x 702 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2002

AED-PA provides federal habeas relief for a state prisoner if a state court’s decision “resulted in or was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme … In determining whether the state court unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent, this Court must limit its inquiry to “whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable

United States v. Richard Vartanian

245 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 2001

Although the conversation initiated by the DeCraenes was quite clearly racially charged, witnesses to the discussion did not recall hearing threats of any kind articulated by those neighbors. … family was moving in across the street from his property, a rational trier of *616 fact could conclude that Vartanian’s anger and threats were directed not only to the real estate agents for their practice of assisting all qualified

Allen v. Highlands Hospital Corp.

545 F.3d 387 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2008

of age or over), (2) was discharged, (3) was qualified for the position held, and (4) was replaced by someone outside of the protected class. … Section 626(c)(1) establishes that any court of competent jurisdiction may hear a civil action brought under the ADEA.

Flaim v. Medical College OH

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 17, 2005

We have already clearly noted that Flaim has a significant interest in receiving adequate notice of the charges against him. … Here, given the highly exaggerated nature of Flaim’s initial complaint, and the fact that Medical College of Ohio filed a Rule 12(b)(6) responsive motion that, among other things, raised the defense of qualified immunity,

Schweitzer v. Teamsters Local 100

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 2005

Schweitzer contends that this statement qualifies as an admission against a party pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(A), (C), or (D) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. … In addition, the district court’s order offers no explanation as to why it concluded that the statement in Green’s affidavit was “clearly hearsay.” J.A. at 247.

United States v. Kenneth King

227 F.3d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 19, 2000

The courts have considered a number of factors in identifying those expectations which qualify for Fourth Amendment protection. … We *749 disagree with the district court’s unsupported conclusion. 3 As stated, the courts have considered a number of factors in identifying those expectations which qualify for Fourth Amendment protection.

La Voz Radio De La Communidad, Miguel Toro, Leandra Abriu, Rosalia Polanco, Israe Lucatero, Keyla Acosta, Manuel Valles, Ingris Branch, Bernardo Moya, Olga Garcia, Henry Rodriguez, Jose L. Baez, Angel Coriano, Cruz Coriano, Bienvenida Rodriguez, Miguel Ruiz, Pedro Pena, Francisca Romero, Luz Maria Montenegro, Rafela Ferrera, and Justina Fernandez v. Federal Communications Commission, and James Bridgewater

223 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 2, 2000

629 (3d Cir. 2000) (unpublished), in which the district court dismissed an essentially identical preemptiveaction brought by a microbroadcaster, concluding that it was an impermissible "end-run around the statutory scheme established … Putting to one side La Voz's failure to assert a cognizable Bivens claim and FCC District Director Bridgewater's obvious entitlement to qualified immunity, litigants "may not bypass the specific method that Congress has provided

Milan Express Company, Inc. v. Western Surety Company

886 F.2d 783 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 22, 1989

A. 8 The ICC, established by Congress in 1887, is "conventionally cited as the first of the modern administrative agencies." … Other security may be evidenced by the filing of an agreement with a financial institution, licensed or qualified to do business in a state or the District of Columbia, establishing a trust fund in the amount of $10,000.

United States v. Timmy Fields

53 F.4th 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 23, 2022

prior convictions’—and not to ‘establish’ the period of imprisonment the defendant served or other consequences that resulted from the conviction”). … Clearly, if the jury is not present to evaluate evidence in that hearing, only the court can decide the “issues of fact” raised in it.

United States v. Kennth Jackson

918 F.3d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 2019

Sub-sections (1), (2), and (3) of § 2119 establish maximum terms of imprisonment. Under § 2119(1), a person convicted of the base offense is subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of 15 years. … The Finley court held that § 924(c) “does not clearly manifest an intention to punish a defendant twice for continuous possession of a firearm in furtherance of simultaneous predicate offenses consisting of virtually the