Case law

United States v. Ronnie Wellington

468 F. App'x 529 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 2012

To qualify for the § 2K2.1(b)(6) enhancement, “the government [must] establish[], by a preponderance of the evidence, a nexus between the firearm and an independent felony.” … According the appropriate “due deference” to the findings of the district court requires the conclusion that the government has clearly established a nexus between the gun and the drugs found in Wellington’s vehicle.

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.

Asser v. Corrigan

952 F.2d 403 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 1992

The plaintiff is appealing an order of the district court denying relief from a March 22, 1991, order dismissing two of the defendants on grounds of immunity. … To be appealable, the order must qualify as either a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , or an interlocutory order denying an injunction under § 1291(a)(1). See Gillis v.

Brenda WELLONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee

165 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 1999

Wel-lons has additionally asserted that she was qualified for the subject employment, and that her race contributed to the defendant’s decision not to rehire her. … Accordingly, the Second Circuit concluded that the defendant’s allegations “failed to establish that plaintiffs’ claims affect its ser *502 vices.” Id.

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

Barbara Campbell v. Nationstar Mortgage

611 F. App'x 288 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2015

The district court further held that, “[e]ven if Campbell did qualify, ‘there is nothing in [Mich. Comp. … The CFPB clearly heard comments from parties that would have preferred a more immediate effective date, but instead chose to strike a compromise.

James C. Stephens, Floyd G. Stephens, Richard Mahoney, Donald v. Nippert v. Retirement Income Plan for Pilots of U.S. Air, Inc.

464 F.3d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 13, 2006

Because the Retirement Board treated the oral agreement as a binding alteration, they claim that this dispute qualifies as a “major dispute.” … I point out that the Company and [the Pilots Association] have bargained to agreement over various provisions incorporated into the Plan, and, clearly, they have the authority to reach an understanding on whether or not interest

United States v. Sutton

605 F.2d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 1979

To say the least, the argument lacks surface appeal, for it asks us to embrace the rather ironic proposition that racketeers should be immune from criminal liability under the statute so long as they keep their activities … Clearly, subsection (a) is talking about legitimate enterprises only.

Wolfe v. Perry

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 2005

Thus, the complaint asserts an unconstitutional-search claim, which was clearly defective at the outset of the case. … Moreover, aside from the lack of a factual basis, the claims against Rose would be barred by prosecutorial immunity, because all the allegations against Nos. 02-1086/1589 Wolfe v.

Herrera Flores v. Mukasey

297 F. App'x 389 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2008

Instead, petitioner improperly requests a blanket immunity from the filing deadline. B. … Mukasey qualifies as a “particular social group” for purposes of the Act.

Penn Mut. Life Ins. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co.

72 F. 413 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 1896

The proper form in which the question might have been put to a duly-qualified witness was: “Are you atole to say, from your knowledge of the practice and usage among life insurance companies generally, that information of … The authorities are not uniform, and we are able to take that view which is more clearly founded in reason and justice.

Medical Center at Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Atrium Health System

817 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 22, 2016

But, if the fact that potential competitors shared in profits or losses from a venture meant that the venture was immune from § 1, then any cartel “could evade the antitrust laws simply by creating a ‘joint venture’ to serve … Here, the defendant hospitals clearly did not completely align their interests, economic or otherwise.

James L. Cannon v. Bristol, Tennessee Board of Education

947 F.2d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 31, 1991

Second, plaintiff received adequate due process at the Board hearing, and, third, the individual defendants were entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified good faith immunity. … II. 7 Plaintiff has failed to challenge on appeal the magistrate judge's finding that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified good faith immunity.

Fears v. Morgan

860 F.3d 881 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2017

“The preliminary injunction posture of the present case thus requires petitioners to establish a likelihood that they can establish both that [Ohio’s] lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain and … Substantial risk of severe pain Under Glossip , to establish that a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment, prisoners must first “establish that the method presents a risk that is ‘sure or very likely to cause

Greer v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 22, 2000

At the same time, we believe a genuine issue remains “in lieu” of a tort claim and those that were clearly not. … Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1104, was one for which he was ill-qualified technically, and after 1109 (1983).

Kenneth Camp v. Bi-Lo, LLC

662 F. App'x 357 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2016

“Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, ‘the burden shifts to the defendant to show that accommodating the plaintiff would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its business.’ ” Rorrer v. … Perhaps a jury will take that position, but there is a displite of fact as to whether Camp’s disability interfered with store operations, The so-called “interference with operations” was one incident—clearly de minimis when

Minority Employees of the Tennessee Department of Employment Security, Inc. v. State of Tennessee, Department of Employment Security

878 F.2d 1436 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 1989

impact was clearly erroneous. … IV 21 After a thorough review of the record, this Court cannot say that the District Court's conclusion that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination is clearly erroneous. 22

United States v. Joe Head

748 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2014

Kamper’s first purported error, regarding the MDMA-to-marijuana ratio, is clearly without merit. … To qualify for this enhancement, a defendant must have managed or supervised “one or more other participants,” and not merely the criminal scheme. Id. at cmt. 2; see also United States v.

Brittingham v. GMC

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 16, 2008

To succeed on a negligence claim under Ohio law, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and causation of an injury. See Menifee, Adm’x v. … We agree with the district court that if the claim is limited to the time “before and after employment,” it is clearly not preempted. J.A. at V. I, p. 80.

Adams v. Standard Knitting Mills

623 F.2d 422 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 1980

Otherwise some misleading solicitations which would trigger liability if shaped in the form of one transaction, would be immune if shaped as the other, or vice versa. 50 The language of the Williams Act clearly demonstrates … The court finds and holds the proof in this case clearly established that, with the knowledge defendant possessed prior to, during and after the 1969 audit compared against the content of the (sic) Peat's 1969 Chadbourn financial