Case law

United States v. Mario Adamo, Richard Marsico, Terry Freeman, Raymond Ripley, Jeffrey Linkous, Ectore Garcia, and Winthrop Hong

742 F.2d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 1984

Appellate courts, unlike trial courts, do not have an opportunity to observe witness demeanor and therefore are even less qualified to judge witness credibility. (10] In holding that the trial judge properly denied the motions … In reference to Lisa Babcock, the prosecutor said, “[h]er testimony will reveal that she has been granted immunity to testify in this case.

United States v. Melodie Ingraham

47 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 1995

Jones, "[i]t is well established principle of appellate review that appellate courts do not address claims not properly presented below." 813 F.2d 773, 777 (6th Cir.1987). … Ingraham raised her immunity defense below, it would have been properly denied because she breached the terms of her Use Immunity Agreement. The government contends that even if this Court chooses to entertain Ms.

United States v. Robert Couch

59 F.3d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 20, 1995

The language of the aggravated assault provision clearly provides for a calibrated adjustment of the offense level according to the use made of the dangerous weapon and, as such, does not double count. U.S.S.G. … party to this appeal 2 Couch testified that his sergeant instructed him to do so 3 Whoever, under color of any law ... willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

United States v. Caruthers

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2006

In the second case, we clearly identified the version of the statute we examined, and it was identical to the definition under which Caruthers was convicted. Compare United States v. … convictions and Caruthers does not dispute that his prior drug conviction qualifies.

Christie v. Seybold

55 F. 69 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 22, 1893

The clause now under consideration seems to qualify that right by providing that in- such case he' who invents first shall have the prior right, if he is using reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting the same, although … The burden is on the second reducer to practice to show the prior conception, and to establish the connection between that conception and bis reduction to practice by proof of due diligence.

Rosencrantz v. Lafler

568 F.3d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 2009

Indisputable falsehood is not established by a simple swearing contest. … The district court's summary rejection of Jack Pascoe's affidavit was thus improper, and should be rejected as clearly erroneous. (JA 1810); see Girts v.

In Re Antitrust Grand Jury

805 F.2d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 3, 1986

particular relevance is the Second Circuit's decision where it recognized that the appellants would be hampered in presenting their case, but ruled that "the limitations on adversary argument caused by in camera submissions are clearly … One court has interpreted Hickman as giving opinion work product nearly absolute immunity. In re Murphy, 560 F.2d at 336 .

Moreno v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

63 F.3d 1404 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 1995

Conrail clearly “receives” federal funds under the FAHA, albeit indirectly, and is therefore liable under section 504. … established.

32 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 688, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,758 David L. Rasimas, Cross-Appellee v. Michigan Department of Mental Health, Cross-Appellant

714 F.2d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 28, 1983

The Finding of Discrimination: 31 MDMH argues that the district court's finding of sex discrimination is clearly erroneous. … Once a claimant establishes a prima facie case and presents evidence on the issue of damages, the burden of producing sufficient evidence to establish the amount of interim earnings or lack of diligence shifts to the defendant

52 Fair empl.prac.cas. 362, 52 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,701, 29 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 308 Jasbir K. Kasuri, (89-3041), Cross-Appellee (89-3086), (89-3224) v. St. Elizabeth Hospital Medical Center William Johnson, Dr. Charles E. Wilkins, Dr., (89-3041), Cross-Appellants (89-3086), Defendants- (89-3224)

897 F.2d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 2, 1990

We conclude that the court's findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous, and we decline to reverse the dismissal of the Title VII claim. B. … To establish a cause of action for fraud, the plaintiff would have to establish each of the elements listed above.

54 Fair empl.prac.cas. 743, 55 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,400, 6 indiv.empl.rts.cas. 186 Harvey Wilmer v. Tennessee Eastman Company, a Division of Eastman Kodak

919 F.2d 1160 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 28, 1990

(Tenn.Ct.App.1981). 18 In the instant case, the relevant portions of the manual provided: 19 [The Policy Statement, on page 4] 20 Equal Employment Opportunity: It is Eastman's policy to provide equal opportunity for all qualified … This provision, in my view, does not affect the retroactivity of the Act, which remains clearly stated in section 15(b)(1).

Adrian Fowler v. Jocelyn Benson

924 F.3d 247 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 8, 2019

Despite clearly established law, the majority concludes that Plaintiffs have no entitlement right at all to challenge their license suspensions on the basis that they are indigent. … Once the plaintiff’s protected property interest was clearly established, only then did the Court “turn . . . to the nature of the procedural due process which must be afforded the licensee on the question of his fault or

United States v. Ronald P. Markwood

48 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 17, 1995

The party offering its bid to the Tank Command is not clearly identified in the materials submitted to this Court, and most of the bid solicitation documents are illegible. … Markwood also contends that the Department of Justice’s failure to seek immunity for him illustrates that it had an improper purpose in issuing the CID.

Durr v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2007

In short, the state court’s decision was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The district court did not err in denying the merits of this claim. B. … Nevertheless, for the reasons just discussed, this case is distinguishable from DePew, and therefore, is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.4

Joseph Ozormoor v. T-Mobil USA, Inc.

459 F. App'x 502 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 25, 2012

True, the Act prohibits consumer agreements that “purport[] to waive a right, benefit, or immunity provided by law, unless the waiver is clearly stated and the consumer has specifically consented to it.” Mich. Comp. … At any rate, Ozormoor has not shown that the arbitrator consciously ignored “clearly defined” legal authority in reaching his decision, as he must to establish a manifest disregard of the law. Dawahare v.

The Cleveco

154 F.2d 605 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 2, 1946

Professor Adams appears to be exceptionally qualified as an expert on maritime matters. … a party has established his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wojcik v. City of Romulus

257 F.3d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 18, 2001

1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant (1) acted “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state” and (2) that this action deprived the plaintiffs of “any rights, privileges, or immunities … The record contains a copy of the Council's August 7, 1995 resolution, which clearly states that it approved the request to transfer the liquor license with a dance permit, but denied the transfer of the entertainment permit

Mia Bennett v. Hurley Medical Center

86 F.4th 314 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2023

“To establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she has a disability; (2) she is otherwise qualified; and (3) she was being excluded from participation … By contrast, the record evidence clearly shows that the decision was motivated by staff and patient complaints of allergic reactions. But these concerns are all related to Pistol, rather than Plaintiff’s panic disorder.

David Williams v. Union Underwear Company, Inc.

614 F. App'x 249 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 5, 2015

The ADA Claim The ADA prohibits employers from “excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual … To establish a prima facie case of associational discrimination, Williams must produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude (1) that he was qualified for the position; (2) that FOL subjected him to an adverse

Meraja v. Ashcroft

113 F. App'x 147 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 29, 2004

The IJ has discretion to grant asylum to any alien who qualifies as a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) & (b). … Ashcroft Meraja contends that her past persecution by the communist regime, including placement in the internment camp, established a well-founded fear of persecution.