Case law

Norma Wiles v. Ascom Transport System, Inc.

478 F. App'x 283 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 30, 2012

Therein, in the context of deciding a qualified immunity issue, this Court concluded that it was not clearly established that “‘stockpiling’ or bulk disclosures of personal information for a permissible purpose under § … In contrast, as noted in several of the cases discussed above, the legislative history clearly establishes that Congress did not intend to alter the traditional method of bulk disclosures by states, subject to the express

United States v. Jackson

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2006

Without objection from defense counsel, the district court qualified her as an expert witness in the field of forensic chemistry. … All of this information was clearly stated in the affidavit, and the affidavit meets the Allen test.”); United States v.

Black v. Surface Transportation Board

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 9, 2007

Working Agreement at a time that a B.R.C. protected employee who is qualified . . . for such position is receiving protection compensation as a furloughed employee.” JA 183 (Agreement H, Section I(1)). … The Board also held that Agreement H “clearly contemplated that an employee receiving protection will lose that protection if he refuses to accept a reasonably comparable position,” JA 13, and that the Extra Board Agreement

Tracy v. National Guard Chief

76 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 1996

Defendants respond that plaintiff's claim for money damages is barred by intra-military immunity and sovereign immunity and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's Federal Tort Claims Act claim. … Plaintiff's claims clearly are barred under the doctrine enunciated in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950). See Major v.

Roxie Hollon, on Behalf of Joseph W. Hollon v. Commissioner of Social Security

447 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2006

Yet, these 350 pages of documents clearly were in existence and available to Hollon during the administrative proceedings, as Hollon herself asserts that all of these materials were “previously submitted to the Commissioner … Without more, Hollon’s “mere marking of the check-box on the request for hearing form” might have been ambiguous, and might not have qualified as a valid waiver of her right to appear before the ALJ.

The Kroger Company v. Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

286 F.3d 382 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 2002

The RAA did not clearly and prejudicially violate the URA and its regulations by construing 49 C.F.R. § 24.303 (a)(6) to exclude expenses for permits related to the construction of Kroger’s new site. … Agencies may consult their own qualified experts when specialists express conflicting views. See Marsh v. Oregon Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 , 109 S.Ct. 1851 , 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989).

Clutter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.

646 F.2d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 7, 1981

They argue that when the causal connection has been sufficiently established between an exposure and an injury such that it is fair to apply a discovery rule should be up to the legislature; that this is not a clear case … The Ohio Constitution, statutes, and case law clearly indicate that the amended statute does not apply to cases already filed before the amendment was enacted.

Richey v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 25, 2005

Therefore, the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling on transferred intent was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. From Williams v. … I suggest that the Ohio Supreme Court did not make any unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law here, nor was it contrary to Fiori or Bouie.

Brian Keith Moore v. George Wilson Vertner Taylor Gene A. Scroggy Unknown

904 F.2d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 1990

904 F.2d 707 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 … Therefore, concluded the court, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987). 5 Upon review, we find no error.

In Re: Sahnica Denise Nolan, Debtor. Chrysler Financial Corporation v. Sahnica Denise Nolan

232 F.3d 528 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 24, 2000

That the debtor is given the option to surrender prior to confirmation does not establish that she retains this right after confirmation when the collateral has significantly depreciated. … Section 1325(a)(5)(C), read in conjunction with sections 1325(a)(5)(A) and (B) and 1325(a)(6), clearly permits only pre-confhmation surrenders.

Wilson v. Rees

624 F.3d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 14, 2010

From the very beginning of the case, Wilson’s defense was clearly a charade: The judge posted his plea on the courtroom door: “PLEASE HELP. DESPERATE. THIS CASE CANNOT BE CONTINUED AGAIN.” … When a person is sentenced to death in a kangaroo court such as Wilson’s, with an illicit sexual affair taking place between a co-defendant and a colleague of the trial judge and no semblance of qualified defense counsel,

McCrary & Dunlap Construction Co. v. Mendes & Gonzales PLLC

79 F. App'x 770 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 27, 2003

The Employment Application stated that M&G was chosen “because its attorneys are experienced in bankruptcy matters and litigation and are well qualified to perform the professional services that will be required as special … Caselaw establishes that the benchmark for determining the severity of the sanction to be imposed is willfulness.

Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.

697 F.3d 387 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2012

We agree with Lexmark that its efforts in federal court, as alleged, should be immune from antitrust suit. C. … However, this distinction was never clearly made to the jury. Lexmark’s claim fails upon closer examination of the jury’s instructions.

United States v. Joseph Arnold

486 F.3d 177 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2007

This clearly represents sufficient time for someone in Gordon’s posi *212 tion to contrive a story or misrepresent the details of her account. … This statement, like Gordon’s statements to the officers when they first arrived on the scene, clearly references past events.

Flynn v. Greg Anthony Construction Co.

95 F. App'x 726 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 7, 2003

P & M Coal Co., 801 F.2d 1373, 1378 (D.C.Cir.1986) (noting that this exception “does not mean that individuals who abuse their positions of control or who attempt to misuse the corporate form are immune from responsibility … Accordingly, the Southern District of Ohio clearly would have had personal jurisdiction over both Columbus Masonry and Pezzo Builders, which are both resident corporations of the state of Ohio and conduct business in the

Weaver v. University of Cincinnati

970 F.2d 1523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 1992

But here the plaintiffs would have the court extend Tierney ITs prospective requirements retrospectively, a suggestion this court clearly declined to adopt in Low-ary II. … The plaintiffs and the court recognized that the state and high state officials were immune from any claim for damages, but sought declaratory and injunctive relief against implementation of a state statute permitting a fair

United States v. Joseph Brown

516 F. App'x 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 2013

Brown next argues that the intent and wording of the ACCA, the holding in Begay, and the facts of this case establish that the ACCA does not apply to him. … law and a burglary.3 He was also convicted of evading arrest under a statute that included as an offense element that he “create[] a risk of death or injury to innocent bystanders or other third parties,” language that clearly

Sam Brooks v. Blaine Lafler

454 F. App'x 449 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 4, 2012

In order for Brooks to prevail, he must demonstrate that the state court decision was contrary to clearly established law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). … Rather, as we have explained, Brooks’s habeas petition rises or falls on the existence of clearly established law as determined by the Supreme Court.

Mosser Construction, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Co

430 F. App'x 417 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 14, 2011

“[O]nce the insurer establishes 6 No. 09-4449 Mosser Construction, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. … Under this definition, Gerken would qualify as a subcontractor.

National Amusements, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. City of Springdale, Doyle H. Webster, Clerk-Treasurer

52 F.3d 326 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 1995

In October 1984, the City enacted a new tax on all entertainment establishments that exempted cinemas. … McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 95 (1980)), the state proceedings need only satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause to qualify for full faith and credit.