Case law

United States v. Wales

68 F. App'x 575 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 18, 2003

The Government contends that the evidence which it presented to the jury clearly established that Wales was involved in a conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine. … Thus, the Government claims that Wales has failed to establish plain error.

Holly Handlon v. Rite Aid Services, LLC

513 F. App'x 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

The court proceeded to discuss the defamation claim in terms of qualified privilege, “[h]aving decided that at least a qualified privilege protected [the] statements.” Id. at 814. … “The threshold for showing extreme and outrageous conduct is high,” and Handlon clearly fails to meet it. See VanVorous v. Burmeister, 687 N.W.2d 132, 142 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

Reese v. CNH AMERICA LLC

574 F.3d 315 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 27, 2009

This qualifying language precludes CNH from maintaining that it had the unilateral right to terminate benefits. … The retirees point us to no other extrinsic evidence that is contemporaneous with the 1998 CBA and that clearly establishes a promise of lifetime benefits that can never vary.

United States v. Mark Gould

30 F.4th 538 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 7, 2022

App’x 546, 548 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“The plain meaning of ‘visual depiction’ clearly encompasses a video that could be viewed—perceived visually—by someone remotely.”). … There is no mention of Gould’s primary arguments, which rely on established canons of interpretation. (Appellant Br. 11, 14-18; Reply Br. 1, 3-5).

United States v. Lopez-Medina

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2006

Medina had clearly been “seized” by Mundy and Hampton at the time he consented to a search of his home. He had been patted down and was not free to leave. … Anderson, 89 F.3d 1306, 1312 (6th Cir. 1996) (finding a law enforcement agent with nine years of experience to be qualified to give expert testimony), no abuse of discretion occurred in the district court’s failure to qualify

Glen L. Swartz v. Robert Hurt, Deputy Warden Doug Richardson, Unit Manager

954 F.2d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 10, 1992

954 F.2d 725 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished … Under the Eleventh Amendment, state employees are immune from damages when a § 1983 action is brought against them in their official capacity. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 592 (6th Cir.1989).

Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Scott

46 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1930

The point now involved can be no more clearly stated than in the language of the foregoing from the Atlas majority opinion. … It is clearly established, and no longer controvertible, that the insured may select and nominate, for coparticipation in the proceeds of his contract, a person who has no interest of any kind in the corpus of the insured

Kelly Volpe v. Ginine Trim

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

Trim Page 9 Only the first provision is at issue here, under which the term “clearly established Federal law . . . refers to the holdings, as opposed to the … In this case, multiple sentences for one offense is a result contrary to clearly established federal law which qualifies Petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus under AEDPA[.]

Patrick J. Kearney v. Department of Industrial Relations, State of Ohio

86 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 1996

86 F.3d 1155 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 … Unless Eleventh Amendment immunity is expressly waived, a state and its agencies are immune from an action for damages and injunctive relief in federal court. See id.

United States v. Maliszewski

161 F.3d 992 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 8, 1998

establish the trustworthiness of the statement.' " Id. … But there is, in sum, no basis for finding he accepted responsibility, and he certainly has not established that the district court clearly erred in finding that he had not. 5.

United States v. Nesbit

350 F. App'x 984 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2009

Batson Challenge 1 He makes no argument that he would qualify for “safety valve” relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), nor does it appear that he would so qualify. … While Nesbit can clearly establish the first two elements of the prima facie Batson challenge, he has not offered sufficient evidence to support the inference of discrimination necessary to meet the third element.

Phelps v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n

112 F. 453 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 3, 1901

This rule is clearly and definitely established. Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583 , 15 L. Ed. 1028 ; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450 , 16 L. Ed. 749 ; Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276 , 4 Sup. Ct. 27, 28 L. … The receiver of the state court had actually qualified, and had served notice of his appointment and authority upon the debtors of the Mutual Association.

United States v. Young

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 2009

The government granted Byford use immunity. Byford testified that between 1996 and 1999 he helped Roller and Young prepare marijuana for sale by “stripping” the plants. … Well, that clearly, that clearly was in furtherance of the conspiracy. It never did come to a fruition, I guess because the deal didn’t go down, but let’s put it this way, that Mr.

Laurie Leitch v. Noah White

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 2025

Nor does Leitch provide any other evidence to establish that White was driving the RZR that day. … The parties dispute whether the RZR qualifies as an ORV, but we need not resolve this issue.

William F.. Murphy v. International Union Of Operating Engineers, Local 18

774 F.2d 114 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 1985

Lemos, 651 F.2d 201 (3d Cir.1981). 9 In Roberts, for example, the Eighth Circuit adopted a district court's suggestion that "Farmer had qualified Henkel.... … Yet, the decision was quite clearly related to the enlargement of the injunctive relief previously entered by the court.

Merton Bond v. Judge Clayton Judge McDonald Judge Miller

894 F.2d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 1990

An example of a case which lacks an arguable basis in law is a case involving an immunity defense. 109 S.Ct. at 1833 . 5 Judges are entitled to immunity from damages where their judicial acts involve the resolving of disputes … Here the defendants clearly acted in their judicial capacities and are entitled to immunity from damages.

Bristol Reg'l Women's Center v. Herbert Slatery, III

988 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 2021

Page 16 Nor does Casey categorically preclude logistical and financial obstacles from establishing undue burden, as our dissenting colleague contends. … Because the EMW court held that the district court clearly erred in its substantial-obstacle finding, the majority says that EMW’s benefits-burden holding was potentially “unnecessary” and “much ado about nothing.”

Hisham D. Abu-Khaliel v. Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General

436 F.3d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 1, 2006

The Sixth Circuit case that the Tenth Circuit cites for this proposition, however deals with an IJ determining whether an immigrant qualifies for “extreme hardship.” See Valenzuela Alcantar v. … “In determining whether the Board abused its discretion, this Court must decide whether the denial ... was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible

Varhola v. John Doe

820 F.2d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 1987

It did not decide what standard of review would apply to a decision by a plan administrator to deny benefits to employees who allegedly were qualified. 12 Thus, our earlier decisions establishing the arbitrary and capricious … Sec. 1109 (a) (establishing liability for breach of fiduciary duty by plan administrators), does not permit recovery of extra-contractual damages by a beneficiary of a plan.

United States v. State Of Michigan

940 F.2d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 1991

On June 22, 1984, the district court denied the motions, concluding that the Knop class and the Jansson plaintiffs did not and could not qualify as intervenors of right or as permissive intervenors pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P … those decisions which otherwise invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this court: 44 [A]s the[ ] cases indicate, if a district court's ruling rests solely on a premise as to the applicable rule of law, and the facts are established