Case law

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.

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

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.

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.

United States v. James L. Butler and F. Lee Hyden

618 F.2d 411 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 1980

government’s possession of the memorandum indicating that Hockaday had, in fact, bid on the bridge crane, when coupled with the government’s knowledge that Hockaday was an admitted perjurer, and had received a grant of immunity … And the mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have aided the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish “materiality” in the constitutional sense.

Ceil Brannen Evans Tiffany Marie Brannen, by Her Next Friend & Mother Ceil Brannen Evans v. Ronald A. Panioto, Judge Carla Ludwig Dianna R. Price Phyllis G. Bossin Sallee Watermann John Daggett Stanley Clawar Brynne Rivlin Sarah M. Knox, M.D. Carolyn Pfleghaar Summit Country Day School Edward Tyrrell Karen Wedemeyer Eugene J. Utz, Judge Raymond E. Shannon, Judge Rupert A. Doan, Judge Harry T. Klusmeier, Judge Thomas J. Moyer, Judge Ronald L. Solove, Judge Robert E. Taylor Jean Stephen Vonder Ahe Robson James Edmond Evans John Does, 1 Thru 25, (94-3602) Ronald A. Panioto, Judge Eugene J. Utz, Judge Raymond E. Shannon, Judge Rupert A. Doan, Judge Harry T. Klusmeier, Judge Ronald L. Solove, Judge, Carla Ludwig, (94-3791)

47 F.3d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 9, 1995

47 F.3d 1168 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 … Likewise, the court reporter is entitled to qualified immunity because Evans has not presented any facts that she acted outside the scope of her lawful authority, see Forte v.

Donna J. Riehle v. Michael P.W. Stone, Secretary of the Army

41 F.3d 1507 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 22, 1994

Finally, Riehle was clearly given an opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance. … Therefore, inasmuch as Riehle was not an otherwise qualified handicapped person, she was not fired based solely on her alleged handicap and, despite Riehle's failure to establish a prima facie case, the defendant showed that

Anarion Investments v. Carrington Mortgage Services

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 2015

Because I agree that legal entities do not qualify as protected persons entitled to remedy under the FDCPA, I respectfully dissent. … Page 8 In this context, Congress began by clearly identifying the group it intends to benefit from the FDCPA.

Cordrey v. Euckert

917 F.2d 1460 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 1990

It seems equally unfair to penalize a child previously enrolled in private summer programs but whose situation later deteriorates so that he now might qualify for a publicly-funded ESY. … We accept the trial court's finding to the contrary as not clearly erroneous 3 See also Sec.

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.

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.

International Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Troy, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2020

“A district court abuses its discretion when it relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, applies the law improperly, or uses an erroneous legal standard.” The Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. … Standing alone, “the moral satisfaction [that] results from any favorable statement of law” does not establish prevailing party status. Hewitt, 482 U.S. at 762.

State of Tennessee v. Xavier Becerra

131 F.4th 350 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 10, 2025

Thus, this provision addresses “who” may qualify as a clinical services provider, not the types of services provided under Title X programs. … By way of background, Congress “may amend substantive law in an appropriations statute, as long as it does so clearly.” Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc., 503 U.S. 429, 440 (1992). “Clearly” need not mean “expressly.”

United States v. Anglin

601 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 7, 2010

But, “[i]f it is possible to violate a criminal law in a way that amounts to a crime of violence and in a way that does not, we may look at the indictment, guilty plea and similar documents to see if they ‘necessarily’ establish … court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own . . . in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly

United States v. Moody

634 F. App'x 531 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 2015

significant procedural error, “such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly … We recently held that third-degree burglary under Ky.Rev.Stat. § 511.040 "does not categorically qualify as generic burglary enumerated in the ACCA.” United States v. Brumback, 614 Fed.Appx. 288, 292 (6th Cir.2015).

United States v. David W. Lanier

33 F.3d 639 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 31, 1994

Moreover, Archie was able to clearly perceive the events underlying both of the assaults and to testify lucidly about them at trial. … Defendant’s testimony that none of the alleged assaults occurred clearly concerned a material matter, and since the testimony utterly contradicted the victims’ testimony, it was clearly made with the intent to provide false

Chicago & E. R. v. Ponn

191 F. 682 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 7, 1911

The fact of negligence is not usually to be established by direct proof, but from inferences arising from'the facts. McGhee v. Campbell, 101 Fed. 937 , 940, 42 C. C. A. 94 . … The sister to whom Ponn paid all his wages was certainly qualified to testify as to his earning power.

Horsehead Resource Development Co., Inc., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner

154 F.3d 328 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 1998

It was clearly not an unfair labor practice to photograph the four miscreants. … The ALJ credited Williams’ testimony, and we cannot say this was clearly erroneous. .

United States v. White

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 11, 2007

(J.A. at 909) At trial, the government did not qualify the challenged witnesses as experts, although preliminary questions to the Medicare auditors established their work experience and background.8 Rather, the district … Very clearly, the prosecutor here made misrepresentations to the district court.