Case law

Republic Steel Corp. v. Costle

621 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 17, 1980

Acute episodes of high pollution have clearly resulted in mortality and morbidity. … The exception was broadened by the elimination of this qualifying language.

Smith Barney, Incorporated v. Roger Sarver Concetta Sarver

108 F.3d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 28, 1997

Furthermore, it is well established under the generally applicable rules governing contract interpretation that specific provisions, like § 15, take precedence over more general provisions, like § 35. Mutual Life Ins. … “When general positions in a contract are qualified by the specific provisions, the rule of construction is that the specific provisions in the agreement control.” Goldberg v.

Gale Edgar v. Jac Products, Inc.

443 F.3d 501 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 2006

Employees seeking relief under the entitlement theory must therefore establish that the employer’s violation caused them harm. See Ragsdale v. … This court held that, because “Cehrs was clearly unable to return to work within the period provided by the FMLA,” the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the FMLA claim. Id. at 785 .

Rachel Clark v. William Jackson

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 2023

that they qualified for an exemption.”). … the virus and had no immunity.

Quality Technology Company v. Stone & Webster Engineering Company, Inc. Stemar Corporation Steven A. White Beta, Inc.

7 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 1993

QTC alleged a RICO claim for damages by asserting that defendants' conduct constituted a pattern of racketeering activity. 3 Defendants moved for summary judgment based on sovereign and qualified immunity on January 19, 1988 … protected property or liberty interest; and (3) defendants were entitled to qualified immunity even if such interests existed. 4 QTC moved for rehearing and reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), arguing that defendants

Rosencrantz v. Lafler

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.

Mahoning Women's Center v. Hunter

610 F.2d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 1979

hospital located within a total transport time of fifteen minutes for use of a standard operating room. 4 Other provisions require the pregnant woman's written, informed consent before an abortion can be performed, and establish … Its main provisions and purpose are clearly invalid.

Gayann Miller v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 27, 2025

SMART’s repeated assertions that Miller failed to establish an element of her prima facie case—that she was qualified for the position—does not change this conclusion. … But she did not need to show that she was the most qualified person to establish her prima facie case. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 (plaintiff’s prima facie burden “is not onerous”).

United States v. Eric Wendlandt

714 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2013

In order to receive an FHA-insured loan, home buyers were required to establish that their income was sufficient to meet the mortgage payments. … Thus, the district court did not clearly err in its loss calculation pertaining to the Plainfield property. No. 11-2018 USA v.

United States v. Timmy Fields

44 F.4th 490 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

prior convictions’—and not to ‘establish’ the period of imprisonment the defendant served or other consequences that resulted from the conviction”). … Clearly, if the jury is not present to evaluate evidence in that hearing, only the court can decide the “issues of fact” raised in it.

United States v. Lee Stephens, United States of America v. Alfonse Bartkus, United States of America v. Milton Silverman, United States of America v. Sam Norber

492 F.2d 1367 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 28, 1974

There was no request that Kahn be granted immunity. 13 The statement by Caracappa that Kahn told him that his cargo would be stolen aspirin was clearly hearsay. … It could have offered Kahn immunity, but chose not to.

Schwartz v. Gregori

45 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 17, 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

Kimberly Ondricko v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC

689 F.3d 642 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

That situation is clearly distinguishable from the situation alleged here: a discharge based on an ambiguous guideline, accompanied by evidence of inconsistent application, and explained on the basis of race. … , (3) she was qualified for the position, and (4) others, similarly situated and outside the protected class, were treated differently.

Ohio v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

761 F.2d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 17, 1985

It requires each state to adopt a plan for administration of programs of medical assistance for the needy, and to have an agency responsible for establishing and maintaining standards for medical institutions included under … Ohio also contends that the Secretary erred in disapproving the amendment on the ground that it would deny comparability of rehabilitative services to persons qualified to receive them.

Gilbert v. Erie R. Co.

97 F. 747 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 1899

The petition, omitting formal parts, is as follows: “Plaintiff says: That she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Calvin Gilbert, now deceased. … We do not think the principle settled in these cases applies to a case where it clearly appears that the injury is the result of the concurrent negligence of the plaintiff and defendant.

Emily Thomas, Cross-Appellant v. Cincinnati Board of Education, Cross-Appellee

918 F.2d 618 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 6, 1990

In order to qualify for federal funds, state and local agencies are bound to federal guidelines delineating identification and placement of handicapped children. … Federal law, however, does not establish such placement preferences.

Police Officers For Equal Rights v. The City Of Columbus, Ohio

916 F.2d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 7, 1990

Further, the District Court found that the 1989 lieutenant examination was not solely a test of knowledge, a finding that is not clearly erroneous. … Lefkowitz's calculations of composite reliability. 76 We find that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in accepting the testimony of Drs.

Zayed v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 24, 2004

Our answer — a heavily qualified “no” — is _________________ different in form, but it leads us to the same result on the facts … Although the petition was dismissed without prejudice, the dismissal clearly terminated It is important to recall that while authority to naturalize the action; Ms.

Parlak v. Holder

578 F.3d 457 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2009

Parlak argues that Singh requires the government to show “an intent to deceive” to establish fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(6)(C)®. … Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915, 933 (9th Cir.2006) (translating prisoners’ responses during torture interrogations qualified as “assistance in persecution” under Fedorenko); Xie v.

American Alliance Insurance Company v. Keleket X-Ray Corporation, Keleket X-Ray Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. American Alliance Insurance Company, Cross-Appellees

248 F.2d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 19, 1957

If the plaintiff were unable to establish the occurrence of an explosion, no liability would arise under any of the policies of insurance. … We think the Supreme Court of Ohio did not intend to establish-- and indeed recognized that it would be impossible to establish-- a hard and fast definition that would satisfy all factual situations.