Case law

Freddie McNeill, Jr. v. Margaret Bagley

10 F.4th 588 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 2021

It is at best unclear whether this rule was firmly and clearly established. … However, I briefly note that, “[t]o qualify as an ‘adequate’ procedural ground, a state rule must be ‘firmly established and regularly followed,’” Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 316 (2011) (quoting Beard v.

James Boyd and Elizabeth Boyd v. Ford Motor Company Rouge Steel Company the Motor Vessel Ms. Henry Ford II

948 F.2d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 6, 1991

This court refused to find clearly erroneous the district court’s findings that the Delta Queen was not in navigation and that the plaintiff, therefore, was not a seaman. … However, it is also true that the routine of lay-up had been established because the vessels could not operate in the ice and cold.

United States v. Jerry Alexander, Jr.

686 F. App'x 326 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2017

Alexander prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense under the career-offender guideline. United States v. Baker, 559 F.3d 443, 450 (6th Cir. 2009). … “A court abuses its discretion when it ‘relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applies the law, or employs an erroneous legal standard,’ or when we are ‘firmly convinced’ that the trial court ‘committed

Sandra Peppers v. United States

485 F. App'x 85 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 18, 2012

However, “[d]espite its spacious terms, § 1346(a)(1) must be read in conformity with other statutory provisions which qualify a taxpayer’s right to bring a refund suit upon compliance with certain conditions.” … “It is well established that a second [or third, or fourth] claim for  No. 11-2321 -5- a refund asserting the same grounds as the

United States v. Rocky Houston

813 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 2016

Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300-03 , 107 S.Ct. 1134 , 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987); Anderson-Bagshaw, 509 Fed.Appx. 396, 403-04 (6th Cir.2012), other videos show Houston standing near the trailer, an area that at least arguably qualifies … he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible.” 476 U.S. at 213 , 106 S.Ct. 1809 .

Donald Bush v. Compass Group USA

683 F. App'x 440 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 23, 2017

Qualified Individual with a Disability The Americans with Disabilities Act provides that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application … By contrast, Bush’s own deposition testimony clearly establishes that lifting up fifty pounds was a regular and essential feature of his work. 9

Refaat Abul Hosn v. Iraq Ministry of Transport

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 30, 2020

After an initial screening,2 the district court determined that IMT had immunity under the FSIA and dismissed the case. … For Rule 12(b)(1) factual attacks, we accept the district court’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. See Russell, 784 F.3d at 1045.

Rabbers v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

582 F.3d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 5, 2009

In fact, it explicitly did not “decide the question of whether a de minimis violation may qualify as harmless error.” 8 Id. … First, the ALJ’s failure to rate the B criteria at step two of the five-step analysis was clearly harmless.

Justice v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

4 F.3d 1387 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 24, 1993

Clearly, such a ludicrous result is not contemplated by the regulations at issue. 793 F.2d at 312-13. … Pursuant to Section 553.212, we must next determine what qualifies as nonexempt activities.

Frazier v. Huffman

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2003

Clearly, he cannot. … In so ineffective assistance claim properly on direct appeal is doing, the majority contravenes clearly established precedent waived. See Bickel v.

Alexander Grigorievich Uritsky v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General

399 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 7, 2005

We therefore agree with the DHS that the grant of youthful trainee status in the respondent’s case qualifies as a conviction under section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act. … As a result, aliens who have clearly been guilty of criminal behavior and whom Congress intended to be considered “convicted” have escaped the immigration consequences normally attendant upon a conviction.

United States v. Tyrone Christian

893 F.3d 846 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2018

That is the case here too, where alone some parts of the affidavit might be criticized but taken together they point clearly to one conclusion: that Christian was dealing drugs from 618 Grandville. … Indeed, Hython by negative inference supports the existence of good-faith reliance here by showing just how unsubstantiated an affidavit must be to fail to qualify under Leon 's good-faith exception.

United States v. Gilberto Torres

644 F. App'x 663 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 2016

Torres contends that the district court clearly erred in imposing the four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(5) because the government failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he knew or had reason to … A review of the facts and inferences from those facts convinces us that the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement.

Southwest Williamson County Community Ass'n v. Slater

243 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 14, 2001

FHWA clearly has jurisdiction over the four interchanges where Route 840 South intersects with federal highways. … FHWA, 950 F.2d at 1134 n. 6 (“In addition to being part of an FHWA approved federal-aid highway system ..., a project must also meet the requirements of environmental regulations to qualify as an FHWA project.”).

Lennon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

504 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 2007

The record in this case establishes that Lennon’s behavior was, to borrow a term sometimes used in tort law, grossly negligent. … Presumably this means conduct that is appreciably more risky, or less beneficial, than conduct qualifying as ordinary negligence....

Jennifer Mason v. Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam

842 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 16, 2016

Second, the longstanding rule is that “whenever the subject matter of an action qualifies it for removal, the burden is on a plaintiff to find an express exception.” Breuer v. … residency, the additional domicile factors apparent from the class definition, and the complete absence of any evidence tending to rebut the presumption óf domicile based on residency, we hold that the district court did not clearly

Bryson v. Regis Corp

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2007

As a threshold issue, a disability-discrimination plaintiff must establish that she suffers from an impairment that qualifies as a “disability.” … First, Bryson must establish a prima facie case.

Frederick Wuebker and Ruth Wuebker v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

205 F.3d 897 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 2000

The CRP was established pursuant to the Food Security Act of 1985, Pub.L. No. 99-198, 99 Stat. 1354 (codified in scattered sections). … Thus, we will sustain the Tax Court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous and we review its legal conclusions de novo. See Kluener v. Commissioner, 154 F.3d 630, 637 (6th Cir.1998). B.

Robert Logan, Jr., and Barbara D. Logan v. United States

518 F.2d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 1975

That provision clearly covers this case. 394 U.S. at 757-58 , 89 S.Ct. at 1448 — 49. … Other evidence established that graduate assistants were added to fill the gap when other personnel resigned, that budget requests indicate that graduate students were hired to meet increased teaching requirements resulting

Bruce Meyers v. Village of Oxford

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 2018

Immunity The district court found in the alternative that the individual-capacity defendants were entitled to qualified and legislative immunity. … immunity [sic] and qualified immunity which was based on the non-existence of a constitutional right discussed herein.”