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

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,

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace And Agricultural Implement Workers Of America, Uaw And Its Local 647, Uaw v. General Electric Company, Inc.

474 F.2d 1172 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 6, 1973

The backlog which the Memorandum of Settlement decided to deal with is clearly defined as "active grievances at 2nd, 3rd and 4th steps on December 4, 1966." … While the contract contains a fairly elaborate arbitration clause, it clearly does not provide for compulsory arbitration of all grievances or for that matter for an absolute no strike clause.

E. Keith Owens v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

568 F.2d 1233 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 20, 1977

Parenthetically, we observe that the record is devoid of any suggestion that taxpayer was qualified to express an opinion in this area. … the opinion of the Secretary or his delegate, does clearly reflect income.”

Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

467 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 20, 2006

The EPA has established NAAQS for six pollutants, including ozone. See 40 C.F.R. § 50 (2006). … Because the EPA’s interpretation does not clearly subvert the language of Section 51.905(a)(2), it warrants deference.

United States v. Michael Moore

578 F. App'x 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2014

possible to violate the statute in a way that would constitute a [violent felony] and in a way that would not, [we] may consider the indictment, guilty plea, or similar documents to determine whether they necessarily establish … In determining whether his convictions qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA, we merely rely upon the state-court documents, and those documents clearly demonstrate that Moore pleaded guilty of violating § 39-14-402(

Charles King, as Administrator of the Estate of Patti Ann King, Plaintiff- Amanda Sue King, by and Through Her Next Friend Charles King Associated Insurance Companies, Intervening v. Ford Motor Company Mazda Motor Corporation

209 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2000

General Motors Corp., 717 F.2d 1511, 1516-17 (6th Cir. 1983) ("[T]he very federal safety statute upon which GM relies makes it abundantly clear that compliance with the regulations promulgated thereunder does not immunize … The plaintiff has the burden, however, to establish causation under the substantial factor test - that is, plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff's harm.

United States v. Hunter

558 F.3d 495 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 9, 2009

This factual finding must be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. King, 516 F.3d 425, 427 (6th Cir.2008). … Hunter’s qualifying prior offenses yielded a total of twenty criminal history points. However, because no more than four points may be added under U.S.

Mihalek Corp. v. State of Mich.

9 F.3d 1548 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 1993

P 27,170 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished … However, the court ruled that Mihalek Corporation is not properly before this court as Mihalek is not an attorney qualified to represent Mihalek Corporation.

Joel R. Gaff v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

814 F.2d 311 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 20, 1987

This court dismissed the RICO action on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to allege any personal injury and therefore had failed to establish a basis for a direct cause of action cognizable under the pertinent RICO … Gaff clearly is not such a purchaser. Therefore, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Gaff's securities claims.

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.

United States v. Terrence Bell

575 F. App'x 598 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 5, 2014

a heightened risk of violent confrontation based on past behavior, thus establishing a “serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” … an element, that element is also established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly.”

United States v. Irving August and Kathleen Bogoff

745 F.2d 400 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 9, 1984

Evid. 702 9 is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the ruling was clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion. Mannino v. … Fed.R.Evid. 702 provides: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge,

Brian Green v. BakeMark USA

683 F. App'x 486 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 27, 2017

To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge under the ADA without direct evidence of discrimination, Green must show that: (1) he was disabled; (2) he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … BakeMark clearly had the right to terminate Green’s employment in September 2012 when it was obvious he could not return to work in any capacity for the foreseeable future. See Harris v. Circuit Court, 21 F.

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

Shomarie Thurmond v. Wayne, County of

447 F. App'x 643 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2011

This immunity applies “no matter how egregious or perjurious” the testimony. Id. Thus, Bunk is entitled to absolute immune from liability, but only for his false identification of Thurmond at the preliminary hearing. … See Spurlock, 167 F.3d at 1001-04 (absolute testimonial immunity does not expand and “cloak” with immunity “any nontestimonial or pre/post-testimonial acts”).

Cuno v. Daimler Chrysler Inc

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2004

DaimlerChrysler estimated that it would specified incentives to an enterprise that “agrees to establish, invest approximately $1.2 billion in this project, which would expand, renovate, or occupy a facility … By contrast, the classification in this case is clearly supported by facts that give rise to a legitimate state interest.

Taylor v. Union Institute

30 F. App'x 443 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 2002

The district court held that Taylor established a prima facie case for her race and gender discrimination claims. … According to Taylor, “a plaintiff may establish pretext by showing an atmosphere of discrimination in the workplace.”

United States v. Shafer

573 F.3d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2009

“Another person” clearly requires at least two individuals to be involved in the act. … Simply because the statute does not specifically state that self-masturbation qualifies as “sexual contact” does not mean that Congress intended for such an activity to be excluded, especially when self-masturbation falls

United States v. Gilpatrick

548 F.3d 479 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 26, 2008

This testimony from three different wit *486 nesses clearly supports the district court’s finding that the enhancement under Section 3C1.1 should apply. Such conduct also legally qualifies as obstruction of justice. … Consequently, we find that the district court’s application of the two-level enhancement was not clearly erroneous. C.