Case law

Lucy H. Maddox v. Internal Revenue Service Data Center

863 F.2d 49 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 1988

Clearly, plaintiff's evidence pertaining to this one employment decision does not begin to meet the standards required to establish a disparate impact case. … We cannot find that this determination is clearly erroneous.

United States v. Michael Harvel

115 F.4th 714 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2024

But all also agree that the government would have timely filed the counts if they qualified as capital offenses that lack a statute of limitations under § 3281. … Harvel Page 7 immunities secured or protected by the Constitution . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both[.] 18 U.S.C. § 242.

Jogelly Turcios-Flores v. Merrick B. Garland

67 F.4th 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 5, 2023

then she also failed to establish that it was “a reason” in the withholding-of-removal context. … To qualify for asylum or withholding on this ground, Turcios- Flores must show she was or will be persecuted due to her membership in the group. She failed to do so.

Betts v. Hamilton County Board of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

848 F.2d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 3, 1988

The contemporaneous filing of the original action together with the ADEA charge was clearly barred by § 626(d). … The district court concluded that the plan in question did not qualify for the § 623(f)(2), exemption because it did not meet certain of the following required criteria which it found must be established: (1) it must be the

Sarr v. Gonzales

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2007

The Board dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, finding both that the immigration judge’s credibility determinations were not clearly erroneous and that the record supported the conclusion “that the conditions in Senegal have … Thus, in order to qualify for withholding of removal, the petitioner “must establish that there is a clear probability that he will be subject to persecution if forced to return to the country of removal.” Pilica v.

Flamingo Express, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration

536 F.3d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 7, 2008

FAA policy clearly states that certification from the FAA is essential to qualifying as planned service. See FAA Policy 75. … The City maintained, on the one hand, that Flamingo Express was requesting 9-seat service when the company had clearly submitted an application for 10-to-30-seat service.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Overman Cushion Tire Co.

95 F.2d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 1937

But, as Judge Caffey’s opinion (affirmed in 2 Cir., 1933, 66 F.2d 361 ) clearly shows, the reasonable royalty in the New York suit covered the entire infringement. … Accordingly, if the decree had been against the manufacturer for a reasonable royalty and had been satisfied, its vendee would be immune from suit.

Lynn Lumbard v. City of Ann Arbor

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2019

In early 2001, the City established a City Task Force and retained engineering consultants to study the problem and devise a solution. … “Even when the plaintiff’s resort to state court is involuntary . . . we have held that Congress must clearly manifest its intent to depart from § 1738.”

Harbin-Bey v. Rutter

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2005

Although Harbin-Bey claims that his STG designation was based on his religious beliefs, the record clearly shows that he was designated as an STG member because of his gang affiliation, not because of his religion. … Harbin-Bey failed to establish that he suffered any adverse action that would satisfy the standard set forth in Thaddeus-X.

Eady v. Morgan

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2008

“A state-court decision will certainly be contrary to [the Supreme Court’s] clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases.” … of . . . clearly established Federal law.’ ” Williams, 529 U.S. at 407-08 (alterations in original).

United States v. Peter John Cates (93-5714) Paul William Cates (93-5756) and Sylvia Buller (93-5767)

21 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 1994

as an organizer or leader under Sec. 3B1.1(a) and more than minimal planning under Sec. 2F1.1(b)(2), because more than minimal planning, the conduct that is taken into account under Sec. 2F1.1(b)(2), also is required to qualify … She also knew that EFEA bills attached to the claims listed multiple "established patient visits" when no visits took place.

Jacob Andrews v. Wayne Cty., Mich.

957 F.3d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 4, 2020

The district court granted summary judgment to the County, holding that the facts did not establish municipal liability or deliberate indifference toward White. This appeal follows. … And, even if a patient otherwise qualifies for the program because she is housed in the general population, the Policy allows the Jail personnel “to restrict self administration privileges to any inmate if necessary, to assure

Schwartz v. Gregori

45 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 1995

funds to Schwartz in the form of bonuses over a three-year period, but Schwartz refused the offer because the bonuses would have been taxable as income in the years they were received, and could not have been invested in a qualified … We note, moreover, that the Gregori defendants’ liability for breach of fiduciary duty and the resulting damage to Schwartz was clearly established by Gregori's refusal, contrary to the best interests of the plan participants

United States v. George E. Moore (88-5932) and Charles R. Morse, (88-5942)

917 F.2d 215 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 9, 1990

There are four essential elements that are required to be proved to establish the offense charged in Count I. … Morse states that Jorgensen’s interest at trial was antagonistic since she had allegedly entered into a “fully cooperative” immunity agreement with the Government and would be exposed to possible prosecution if she gave testimony

Merton E. Bond v. George J. Long, Magistrate

891 F.2d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

The court held that the defendant was entitled to judicial immunity from liability for damages because he was clearly acting in a judicial capacity. 4 The general rule is that a judge is immune to a suit for damages as long … Fischer, 530 F.2d 691, 692 (6th Cir.1976) (per curiam) (state court referee is entitled to judicial immunity). Here the magistrate was clearly acting in his judicial capacity.

Charity Hunt v. Randy Thorp

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 18, 2024

Thus, we will assume that she has established the first element. … However, Hunt cannot establish element two: she lacks evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that she was otherwise qualified for her position.

Chicago, D. & G. B. Transit Co. v. Moore

259 F. 490 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 30, 1919

Each of the seven libelants referred to was attended throughout his illness by a reputable local physician, and in each case (still qualifying as to Town) the disease was pronounced unquestionably typhoid, or of that nature … An experienced nurse, who attended him after July 12th, pronounced the case clearly typhoid.

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

630 F. App'x 447 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2015

of 56 was as close to a qualifying pulmonary function study as possible without actually qualifying. … However, Simco Peabody’s disagreement with the administrative law judge’s recognition of the validity of the non-qualifying study’s results in formulating a reasoned medical opinion is ill-founded and contrary to established

United States v. Cleveland C. Werts

931 F.2d 57 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 23, 1991

Since we find that the district judge's determination that Louise Werts testified voluntarily despite her spousal relationship with Werts is not clearly erroneous, we find that Louise Werts properly waived spousal immunity … Miranda established the following test to determine custody: was the defendant's freedom of action deprived in a significant way. Id.

Dejan Kostic v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

340 F. App'x 249 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 8, 2009

The burden is on the applicant to establish that he or she qualifies as a refugee. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)-(b). … His counsel then clarified that she was asking what the initials stood for, and Kostic clearly stated: “Serbian Movement.”