Case law

United States v. Hang Le-Thy Tran

433 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 5, 2006

The Court emphasized the “qualifying words ‘used in,’ ” which mandate that “the damaged or destroyed property must itself have been used in commerce or in an activity affecting commerce.” Id. at 854, 120 S.Ct. 1904 . … In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we defer to the district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Legal conclusions, however, are reviewed de novo. United States v.

Edward N. Carlton v. Jackson County Court Michigan Department of Corrections T. McLauchlan Officers Brian Peacock Tweedie and Wilmoth

875 F.2d 862 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 1989

Here the plaintiff has not presented any reason why the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. … Here the district court was clearly expressing his opinion concerning judicial matters.

Glen Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

77 F. App'x 878 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2003

Further, Glen Coal “did not qualify or limit its 1984 agreement to clinical pneumoconiosis.” The ALJ refers to Glen Coal’s “unconditional agreement that Claimant suffers from disabling statutory pneumoconiosis.” … McQuillan’s opinion that the treatment was clearly for Seals’s pneumoconiosis, Dr. Cander’s finding that the use of bronchodilator drugs was justified for treatment of Seals’s pneumoconiosis, and Dr.

Harrison Construction Company v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, Harrison Construction Company, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellee v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, Defendant-Cross-Appellant

316 F.2d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 1963

The trial court's oral opinion clearly reflects this. … These factors were brought out in the trial, counsel for the Commission attempting to establish that there was disparity between the conditions as anticipated and conditions as actually encountered.

Fair Elections Ohio v. Jon Husted

770 F.3d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 24, 2014

AMOS made two evidentiary showings on summary judgment, neither of which establishes an injury in fact. … But although the majority has not determined that those judges clearly erred in their factual findings, see Howard v.

United States v. Rozin

664 F.3d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2012

If Rozin or Kallick qualified for coverage during the one-year policy period, the maximum amount that they could receive under the LOI policy was $30,000 per month for a period of twenty-four months. … In Minarik, “there was a great deal of confusion” due to “the Government’s shifting theories” and “failure to clearly define the intent element in the indictment.” United States v.

United States v. Mark Morelock

369 F. App'x 681 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 15, 2010

So, I think technically he is going to qualify as a Career Offender. DE 130 at 5. … The district court explicitly took notice of its discretion to depart from the Guidelines range produced by applying § 4B1.1 and equally clearly declined to do so. See DE 130 at 4–11.

Dennis Gover v. Mitch Perry

698 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 23, 2012

Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), the clearly established federal law at the time. Nevertheless, the district court denied the petition after reaching and deciding the issue of harmlessness, sua sponte. … established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

Sjöstrand v. Ohio State University

750 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 28, 2014

In order to establish a prima facie case under the ADA, “plaintiffs must allege either that they are or are perceived to be handicapped ..., that they are otherwise qualified for the [position], and that they were discriminated … Indeed, given the fact that Sjostrand received her undergraduate degree from Ohio State, with honors, in only two-and-one-half years, Joseph, Radliff, and Miranda were clearly on notice that the plaintiffs Crohn’s disease

United States v. Bucio-Cabrales

635 F. App'x 324 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 14, 2016

Third, he raises a new claim that Agent Durbin’s warrant ‘affidavit failed to establish probable cause because it did not establish a nexus between illegal drug activity and 4020 Migration Lane.' Id. at 25. … affidavit were not, in his view, sufficient to establish the requisite “nexus.”

Beuke v. Houk

537 F.3d 618 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2008

See Bates, 402 F.3d at 644 (“It is well-established law that a prosecutor cannot express his personal opinions before the jury.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). … Just as in Bates , “[t]his type of appeal to fear and emotion clearly poisoned the hearing.” Id. at 648 .

United States v. James A. Russo Vincent Meli Roby G. Smith

708 F.2d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 1983

The majority extended the immunity of the exception even to the defendants in the Local 807 case who, after their offer to perform services was rejected, demanded payment for work that was not done and resorted to violence … Thus, as I read Enmons , use of wrongful means — and the use of violence on a picket line is clearly wrongful — is not enough to come within the coverage of the Act.

United States v. Parker

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2004

This court reviews the district court’s findings of fact in a suppression hearing under the clearly … The issue before the Supreme Court in Shadwick neutral and detached requirement: was whether municipal court clerks qualified as neutral and detached magistrates.

Marlowe v. Fisher Body

489 F.2d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 6, 1973

The record clearly discloses that an act of discrimination consisting of failure to grant advancement and overtime to plaintiff is alleged to have occurred on May 10, 1967. … Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 , 91 S.Ct. 1790 , 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971), the Supreme Court held that § 1985(3) is concerned with all deprivation of equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities under the laws.

Cooper v. Life Ins Co

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

Unlike in Elliott, we find no need to remand this matter for additional consideration by LINA because of our conclusion that Cooper has clearly established that she is disabled under the Plan. See Kalish v. Liberty Mut. … But, as set forth in Part I. above, the record in the present case clearly establishes that Drs. Boehm, Brown, and Ford, three of Cooper’s treating physicians, based their opinions on objective medical evidence.

Canfield v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

168 F.2d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 12, 1948

Canfield, in his individual capacity doing business as Canfield Motor Sales established a Packard Automobile Agency. … they had by taking a particular gamble in their partnership business, his wife “overruled” him, and “wouldn’t permit him to sell,” the wife would certainly not be properly classified as a docile spouse but rather would qualify

Mattie Tolton and Ronald Tolton v. American Biodyne, Inc.

48 F.3d 937 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 1995

The parties concede that the plan is a qualified employee benefit plan pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (1). … Plaintiffs’ claims against these defendants, therefore, clearly “relate to” the benefit plan.

Six Clinics Holding Corporation, Ii v. Cafcomp Systems, Inc.

119 F.3d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 1997

A cafeteria plan permits employees to set aside pre-tax dollars to purchase certain "qualified benefits." See 26 U.S.C. § 125 (d), (f). Lenza D. Reaves, Jr. … In Buha, we held that ERISA clearly creates a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity, and that ERISA could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding.

Tara Blessing v. Sujana Chandrasekhar

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2021

In Gerber, we noted that there was a “dearth of caselaw . . . defining precisely what types of appearances and filings qualify as ‘a [defendant’s] legal submission to the jurisdiction of the court.’” … Alkhabaz held that the communications at issue did not qualify as threats under the statute. 104 F.3d 1492, 1496 (6th Cir. 1997).

Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.

544 F.3d 618 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 2008

Here, plaintiffs allege that Columbia Gas failed to protest the trees; this is tantamount to alleging mere silence and is therefore insufficient to establish waiver under Ohio law. 13 2. … Plaintiffs make a passing reference to the argument that Seibert was not qualified as an "expert.”