Case law

United States v. John A. Rapanos

115 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 4, 1997

Rapanos what portions of his property qualified as wetlands and that they hoped to determine the extent to which the defendant had destroyed these wetlands by filling them with sand. … If a person cannot establish a reasonable expectation of privacy, then the government’s search of his property simply does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. Mr.

Robert Anthony Reed, III v. James A. Rhodes

607 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 1979

By the same token, the shortage of qualified teachers during the 1960s cannot be viewed as the cause of the segregated condition of the Cleveland school system’s faculty. … They certainly cannot be found to be clearly erroneous.

Boles v. Weist

849 F.2d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 1988

849 F.2d 608 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service … We affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's suit as to this issue because it is without merit, rather than on the basis of judicial immunity which was referred to by the district court. 7 Plaintiff also received due process when

United States v. Hardy

643 F.3d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 2011

The district court explained it was departing to a criminal history category VI, which would have applied had Hardy qualified as a career offender. … The court explained that Hardy had four previous crimes of violence, and that his history clearly demonstrated a violent criminal pattern and future threat.

Michelle Bazzetta v. Kenneth McGinnis Director of Michigan Department of Corrections Michigan Department of Corrections

430 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 28, 2005

According to the substance abuse regulation, prisoners whose visits have been permanently restricted nevertheless receive visits from “attorneys or [their] representative[s], [or] qualified clergy and staff from the Office … Accordingly, it analyzed the regulations under the formulation established by the Supreme Court in Sandin v.

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. City of Cleveland

484 F.2d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 14, 1973

He concluded that a limitation on rehiring former employees would serve to bring the Cleveland program within these qualifying provisions as well. … Under these circumstances there was clearly no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s declining to exercise its pendent jurisdiction to decide these non-federal questions. United Mine Workers v.

Vencor, Inc. v. Standard Life & Accident Insurance

317 F.3d 629 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

In order to establish a claim of promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must show that a promise was made and that the plaintiff reasonably relied on the promise to his detriment. Calabro v. … The court noted that "expense” is defined in the dictionary as "that which is expended, laid out, or consumed; an outlay; charge; cost [or] price,” and "eligible” is defined as "fitted or qualified to be chosen or used.”

Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of The Province Of Ontario v. The City Of Detroit

874 F.2d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 1989

as involved in this appeal is clearly indicated by the Court's holding in International Paper Co. v. … Had the Court meant to impose this type of qualifier, it surely would have said so. 70 In our view, the argument cuts the other way, because if anything, one would assume that there is less reason to allow a state action

United States v. Johnny E. Gatewood,defendant-Appellant

230 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 2000

robbery of controlled substances from DEA registrant). 6 The three strikes statute contains a disqualification provision, or an affirmative defense, that provides a defendant withthe opportunity to prove that an otherwise qualifying … Gatewood's own testimony was the only evidence he presented to establish that the convictions were nonqualifying.

United States v. Thomson

268 F. App'x 430 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 7, 2008

Taylor and Shepard clearly bind sentencing courts to use a “categorical approach” to determine whether an offense qualifies as a violent felony. United States v. McGrattan, 504 F.3d 608, 611 (6th Cir. 2007). … Our circuit held that: [i]f the statute does not clearly establish that the offense involves the ‘use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,’ the court may then look at the charge in the

Fingal E. Johnson v. Chris Daniels G.B. Brown Robert Atherton

909 F.2d 1483 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 1990

909 F.2d 1483 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 … Even if subject to suit the defendants would still be free to assert the defense of qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacity. See Birrell, 867 F.2d at 958 ; Poe v.

Centerior Service Company General Electric Company Ashland Oil, Incorporated v. Acme Scrap Iron & Metal Corporation

153 F.3d 344 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 31, 1998

Section 107(a) clearly establishes the right of parties to seek “necessary costs of responses.” It does not specify whether these costs will arise from joint and several liability or sound in contribution. … A § 106 administrative order requiring cleanup in the face of penalties or fines clearly satisfies such a requirement.

United States v. Clifton L. Cousins

469 F.3d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2006

Farrow, 198 F.3d 179, 191, 193 (6th Cir. 1999) (reversing the district court's "cumulative use of the same conduct to both establish a base offense level and apply an enhancement" and noting this Circuit's "well-established … We believe that the answer to this question is clearly no. 31 Burns, 501 U.S. at 135 , 111 S.Ct. 2182 .

Cody Boone v. Ottawa County Central Dispatch Authority

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 21, 2026

The individual defendants respond that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … If we find no constitutional violation occurred, we need not address whether the right was clearly established. Kinlin v. Kline, 749 F.3d 573, 577 (6th Cir. 2014).

Hon. David F. Breck v. State Of Michigan

203 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 10, 2000

Further, whether the identified legitimate state interests were actually considered in establishing the prohibition is irrelevant. See Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 612 (1960); Zielasko, 873 F.2d at 961 . … Clearly, the laws only prohibit the election of people who are already seventy but do not prohibit the election of candidates who are sixty-nine or younger and might serve until they are seventy to seventy-six years old.

Sherry Capps v. Cremation Options, Inc.

617 F. App'x 428 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2015

Unfortunately for Cremation Options, it clearly would have qualified as a “funeral establishment or funeral director” for purposes of the safe-harbor provisions in §§ 62-5-707 and 708, had those statutes been in effect … in October 2011, but it would not qualify as the “operator of a crematory facility” for purposes of the safe harbor provided in § 62-5-511.

Leelanau Wine Cellar v. Black & Red Inc

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 20, 2007

Page 4 “generic” mark may5never qualify for trademark protection.4 Id. Between these two poles lie “descriptive” marks. … Moreover, the court did not set forth any rule establishing the more deconstructed approach LWC recommends.

Kaba v. Mukasey

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2008

Furthermore, the court found that the administrative record did “not clearly establish a nexus on which this Court could find that any of the harm that [Kaba] underwent, or his family underwent, was due to a protected ground … In order to qualify for withholding of removal, the petitioner “must establish that there is a clear probability that he will be subject to persecution if forced to return to the country of removal.” Pilica v.

Andretti v. Borla Performance Industries, Inc.

426 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2005

Borla Performance Industries Page 6 worked diligently to establish over the years. … They helped establish the value of corporate sponsorship contracts, but did not show that any current contract or future contract opportunity was impaired.

Joel Helfman v. GE Group Life Assurance Co

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 24, 2009

Sun Life is correct that there is “nothing inherently objectionable about a file review by a qualified physician in the context of a benefits determination.” Calvert v. Firstar Fin. … We do not, however, find that the record clearly establishes that Helfman is disabled and that he is therefore entitled to judgment in his favor.