Case law

United States v. Dixon

262 F. App'x 706 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 1, 2008

The District Court’s Finding that Dixon did not Qualify for the Safety Valve is not Clearly Erroneous. … qualify for the safety-valve reduction is upheld

Steve D. Anderson v. Dean Smith, Chief Deputy of Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, Don Knight, Sheriff of Hamblen County, Tennessee, Skip Simmons, Deputy Sheriff of Hamblen Sheriff's Department, Herbert Collins, Steve D. Anderson v. Tom Eslinger, Sheriff of Jefferson County, Dandridge, Tn.

872 F.2d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 27, 1989

872 F.2d 1023 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service … The district court held that the other defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Dominque v.

McAdoo v. Elo

346 F.3d 158 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 2003

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly We apply the standards of AEDPA to McAdoo’s three established Federal law, as determined … United States, 397 U.S. whether the state court’s application of clearly established 742, 748 (1970). A guilty plea must be accompanied by “an federal law was “objectively unreasonable.”

Amanda Hoskins v. Jason York

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2024

Grand jury witnesses enjoy absolute immunity from § 1983 claims founded upon their testimony. Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 369 (2012). … That absolute immunity contrasts with the qualified immunity that officers may claim for their actions outside of the grand jury room. King, 852 F.3d at 584. The court understood the distinction.

Cornish v. Johnson

774 F.2d 1161 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 1985

In addition, legal arguments were taken as to defendants' claims of Eleventh Amendment, executive and/or qualified immunity. 10 In a memorandum entitled 'Opinion on Damages' issued on December 18, 1981, the district court … The 1981 opinion then devoted five pages to addressing three affirmative defenses to plaintiffs' charges, specifically Eleventh Amendment immunity, executive immunity, and qualified immunity, ultimately holding the defenses

Brendon Schoonover v. K. R. Rogers

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2022

Officers invoking qualified immunity are not liable if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,” and Schoonover has not shown that either Corrill or Rogers deprived him of his … Eighth Amendment rights—whether clearly established or not.

Keegan Gordon v. Traverse City Area Public Sch.

686 F. App'x 315 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2017

But before addressing Keegan’s pretext arguments, we must identify which actions qualify as adverse. … Traverse City Area Public Schools not establish deliberate indifference because they “fail[ed] to establish that [plaintiff] reported . . . to Defendants within a time frame that reasonably enabled Defendants to respond

Indiana State District Council of Laborers v. Omnicare, Inc.

583 F.3d 935 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2009

Zaluski that the statements regarding the contract, though misleading, did not require further disclosures: In City of Monroe, once the company chose to speak regarding an objective fact, it was required to qualify … Page 16 In sum, the complaint does not sufficiently establish that defendants actually knew that the “legal compliance” statements were false when made.

United States v. Antonia Campos, Jose Campos, Milk-O-Mat, Inc.

859 F.2d 1233 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 1988

One seeking to establish a right under that section must show the required “interest” in the “property subject to forfeiture.” Id. … The district court decision is clearly subject to review on appeal.

Aiken v. City of Memphis

37 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 6, 1994

Such an ap *1173 plication is clearly antithetical to the Fourteenth Amendment. … Because this percentage was below the target percentage identified in the 1980 consent decree, the City used the 20% goal established in the decree. .

Mikhaila Lenoir v. Shelby Cnty. Health Care Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 20, 2025

“The clearly established rule in this circuit is that a district court must afford the party against whom sua sponte summary judgment is to be entered ten-days notice and an adequate opportunity to respond.” Yashon v. … An expert may employ the same methods to establish similarity as she would to establish familiarity with the pertinent community. See Shipley, 350 S.W.3d at 552. Dr.

Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County

326 F.3d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2003

related to a legitimate state purpose; and, therefore, was a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution; and (4) whether the district court properly found that Defendants were not entitled to absolute immunity … The issue of money damages was not litigated in the state court proceedings, but it clearly could have been. Plaintiffs chose to abandon this claim at the state court level, hoping to raise it in federal court.

United States v. James Napier

787 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2015

It merely establishes the unsurprising fact that Google can access all emails sent using its own servers. … evidence that these electronic communications were 6 Napier’s counsel did repeatedly raise the interstate commerce issue at sidebar during Burnham’s testimony, which ultimately led to the district court qualifying

Ivory v. Jackson

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 15, 2007

A state-court decision is considered “contrary to . . . clearly established federal law” if it is “diametrically different, opposite in character or nature, or mutually opposed.” Williams v. … Alternatively, to be deemed an “unreasonable application of . . . clearly established Federal law,” a state-court decision on the merits must be “objectively unreasonable,” not simply erroneous or incorrect.

Pamela Campbell v. Dundee Cmty. Sch.

661 F. App'x 884 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 13, 2016

As to Nelson and Carner, the plaintiff must show that the officials’ conduct violated a constitutional right and that the right is “clearly established.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201-02 (2001). … The burden is on the plaintiff to show that the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity. Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640, 647 (6th Cir. 2010).

Dax Hawkins v. Jeffrey Woods

651 F. App'x 305 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 23, 2016

However, this frames the clearly established Supreme Court precedent at too high a level of generality and “is far too abstract to establish clearly the specific rule [petitioner] needs.” Lopez v. Smith, 135 S. … Thus, as the district court recognized, Panetti is of no avail to Hawkins because he has not identified clearly established Supreme Court precedent that affords him the antecedent due process protection he seeks.

The Dunlop Company, Limited, and Cross-Appellee v. Kelsey-Hayes Company, and Cross-Appellant

484 F.2d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 1973

Dunlop maintains that the Goodyear activity does not qualify, for a number of reasons, as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 . … However, the case does not establish a requirement of successful testing as contended by Dun-lop.

United States v. Jimmie White

920 F.3d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2019

The Speedy Trial Act strengthens this constitutional mandate by establishing time limits for completing the various stages of a federal criminal prosecution. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 - 3174. … Richardson , 681 F.3d 736 , 741 (6th Cir. 2012) ("[G]iven the context, the record clearly establishes that a continuance serves the ends of justice.").

Boone v. Spurgess

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 2004

Boone testified that he “remember[s] . . . clearly” that the .45 was not exposed at that time. Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 136 (Dep. of Anthony Boone). … They moved for summary judgment both on the merits and on the basis of qualified immunity; the motions for summary judgment on the merits were granted. II.

Fry ex rel. E.F. v. Napoleon Community Schools

788 F.3d 622 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 12, 2015

Clearly, an “expert determination” about “technical educational issues” might well concern whether a handicapped student could be mainstreamed or would fare better in a special-education classroom. … The experts qualified to make the “technical decisions” for children in the latter group are obviously not trained educators but their physicians and physical therapists.