Case law

John L. Morgan v. City of Columbus, Jane Schoedinger, G.R. Lorello, and Dana G. Rinehart

7 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1993

And he clearly understood that and he acknowledged that. … Plaintiff reads this statement as placing the burden upon plaintiff to raise the issue of immunity and argues that the burden is on the state to offer immunity, not vice versa While we decline to read the district court's

Pazdzierz v. First American Title Insurance (In Re Pazdzierz)

718 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2013

The party seeking to establish an exception to the discharge of a debt must prove the requisite elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 291 (1991). … Cantrell, 217 F.3d 890, 896 (7th Cir. 2000) (Ripple, J., concurring) (“The language ‘obtained by’ clearly indicates that the fraudulent conduct occurred at the inception of the debt, i.e., the debtor committed a fraudulent

Alexis M. Herman, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Fabri-Centers of America, Inc.

308 F.3d 580 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2002

The district court specifically noted that there was no “qualifying language in the statute limiting credits on a workweek basis.” … The district court also stated that there was nothing in the language of § 207 or the Secretary’s regulations that required it “to read a qualifier into clear statutory language.”

Brian Bash v. Textron Financial Corporation

834 F.3d 651 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2016

These facts, to varying degrees, do support the district court’s conclusion that the parties did not clearly intend the 2004 ARL&SA to be a novation of the 2002 L&SA. … Accordingly, because the Trustee has established the existence of an ambiguity as to whether the parties clearly intended the 2004 ARL&SA to extinguish the 2002 L&SA and the security interest it created, we conclude that

Carlton v. Johnson

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 2006

First, in the aftermath of Hudson, a 1992 decision by the Supreme Court and the principal decision upon which we rely today, the defendants cannot claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because if Carlton’s … allegations are true, the officers violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Frisch's Restaurant, Inc. v. Shoney's Inc.

759 F.2d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 1985

Of course, the Mason County criteria “do not establish a rigid and comprehensive test for determining the appropriateness of preliminary injunctive relief”. Tate v. … Becker as a qualified expert in the field of scientific survey is not disputed on the appeal.

David Stone and Colleen Stone v. John Wilson Kirk and J.W.K. Land and Cattle Company, Inc.

8 F.3d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 1993

It is well established that a joint venture interest can qualify as a security where the investor is “entirely passive and [where he] invested in the joint ventures in reasonable reliance on the expected efforts and expertise … But although the plaintiffs may not have been entitled to go to the jury on their nondischargeability claim, they were clearly entitled to go to the jury on their securities fraud claim.

United States v. Wayne Cnty

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 28, 2004

In nuisance exception to governmental immunity. See Pohutski accordance with the Clean Water Act and Michigan law, the v. … those more extreme rainstorm (six inches in 24 hours) occurred, discharges, do not make closing the Riverview bypass only four of the eight bypasses that remained open after impermissible and do not establish

Roger Robinson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

861 F.2d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 1988

861 F.2d 721 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 … Goldstein which establishes that it is not. 29 Therefore, the decision of the Secretary that the plaintiff's guard shack job was past relevant work is not supported by substantial evidence, and the District Court's finding

United States v. Taylor

301 F. App'x 508 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 24, 2008

Sixth Circuit precedent “clearly establishes that the affiant need only specify that the confidential informant has given accurate information in the past to qualify as reliable.” … The government bears the burden of establishing that defendant’s prior convictions qualify as ACCA predicates. See United States v. Goodman, 519 F.3d 310, 316 (6th Cir. 2008).

Amerco Marketing Company Of Memphis, Inc. v. Carlos Myers

494 F.2d 904 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 1974

In that case the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff failed to establish a jury issue as to causation. … The quoted language from the lease contract does not clearly show an intent that the customer will indemnify Amerco for damages or liability resulting from Amerco's own negligence.

Joseph P. Dyer III v. James Bowlen, Warden

465 F.3d 280 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2006

established federal law. … In doing so, the state court subjected Dyer to a more exacting standard— a standard that is contrary to the clearly established law as stated in Morales and Garner. Cf.

United States v. Coteat

133 F. App'x 177 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 11, 2005

Absent this offense, Coteat would have only one predicate offense and thus would not qualify as a career offender. … Whereas Morton’s offense clearly could not qualify as a predicate offense under the newer version of the statute, the wide-scale changes in Ohio law made it impossible to determine with certainty whether the new law would

United States v. Paull

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2009

Paull makes no attempt to demonstrate that the district court clearly erred in crediting the officers’ testimony. … Nor is there any persuasive argument as to why a limited protective immunity order could not be issued in this matter.”);United States v. Halter, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54276 at *9-10 (N.D.

Tenn-Fla Partners v. First Union National Bank (In re Tenn-Fla Partners)

226 F.3d 746 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 18, 2000

findings in these terms: *748 From its discussion of the proof, it is evident to the court that the debtor provided misleading and incomplete disclosures, that the debtor had serious contacts with several motivated and qualified … “A factual finding will only be clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

National Solid Wastes Management Association v. Daviess County, Kentucky

434 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 2006

We find that Plaintiff has established constitutional standing. … Under the statutes, solid waste generated in Michigan automatically qualified for disposal in Michigan landfills, whereas solid waste generated in other states did not automatically qualify, but instead required additional

Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education

706 F.2d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 1983

At most, principles of res judicata would establish only that plaintiffs were not entitled to this remedy as of 1973. IV. … The advantages of seniority based on length of service are well established and need not be recounted here.

Cincinnati Enquirer v. Dep't of Justice

45 F.4th 929 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2022

FOIA codifies “a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language.” Dep’t of the Air Force v. … “Embarrassing and humiliating facts—particularly those connecting an individual to criminality—qualify for these descriptors.” Id. (collecting cases).

United States of America Ex Rel. Edgar I. Shott, Jr., Relator-Appellant v. Dan Tehan, Sheriff of Hamilton County

365 F.2d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 19, 1966

Appellant, in his attempt to establish that the Ohio Securities Act violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, relies mainly on Yee Hem v. … The statute clearly sets forth the conduct proscribed.

Carl Ward v. NPAS, Inc.

63 F.4th 576 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 24, 2023

by calling him after he attempted to send a cease-and-desist letter, see § 1692c(a)(2) & (c).2 After the close of discovery, the district court granted NPAS’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that NPAS did not qualify … But the panel reserved the question whether Ward’s receipt of the third voicemail (after his attempt to send a cease-and-desist letter) could constitute an Article III injury, finding that Ward’s complaint had not clearly