Case law

Joseph Hendrix v. Carmen Palmer

893 F.3d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2018

A state-court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if the two are “‘diametrically different,’ ‘opposite in character or nature,’ or ‘mutually opposed.’” Williams v. … The Michigan appellate courts’ rejection of this claim is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Hendrix is therefore entitled to relief on the basis of his Doyle claim. G.

Northland Insurance Company v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Cailu Title Corporation, Donald G. Sare, Jr., and Kelly L. Sare

327 F.3d 448 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 2003

Thus, the facial allegations in the state court complaint allege conduct which clearly falls within the exclusions in the policy. … However, the First Amended Complaint also contains negligence allegations, which clearly fall within the scope of the errors and omissions policy.”

Mohammad Reza Daneshvar v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

355 F.3d 615 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 20, 2004

It is therefore unclear whether or not an act that would qualify as “engage in terrorist activity” must at the *628 same time be unlawful in the United States. … In other words, the question is whether MEK’s conduct during the hostage crisis, which is clearly in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(3)(B)(iv)(I), ought to be evaluated in light of the more speech-friendly First Amendment

9 O.S.H. Cas.(bna) 1848, 1981 O.S.H.D. (Cch) P 25,429 Southern Ohio Building Systems, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor

649 F.2d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 28, 1981

In the "Discussion" portion of his decision the administrative law judge stated, "The position in which the two employees were working clearly demonstrates that a fall was likely to occur." … 1294 (7th Cir. 1974), discussing promulgation of construction industry standards When the Secretary determines the need for a specific standard, he may receive comments from an advisory committee which must include persons qualified

John L. v. Adams

969 F.2d 228 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 1992

Outside the prisoner context, the Court has found support for the right of access in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. … This proposition is clearly set forth in these cases and requires no further discussion.

Dugboe v. Holder

644 F.3d 462 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 6, 2011

To qualify for withholding of removal under the CAT, the alien must “establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). … As the IJ stated: “He refused to answer any number of questions, and he denied an ability to remember other things that he quite clearly had the ability to remember, and he lied about other things.”

United States v. Norbert Plavcak

411 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 2005

As we observed in Rohrig , While it is not possible to articulate a succinct yet exhaustive list of circumstances that qualify as “exigent,” we have previously characterized the situations in which warrantless entries are … [T]he Fourth Amendment’s broad language of “reasonableness” is flatly at odds with any claim of a fixed and immutable list of established exigencies.

Eric Cockream v. Kurt Jones

382 F. App'x 479 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2010

established federal law.”). … To examine prosecutorial misconduct, we employ a two-prong test, asking first whether the prosecution’s remarks qualified as improper, and, if so, whether they “were sufficiently flagrant to warrant reversal.”

Borman, LLC v. 18718 Borman, LLC

777 F.3d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2015

But as the district court observed, the Supreme Court’s nineteenth-century treatment of debt contracts is not a principled basis on which to depart from the clearly established modern approach that balances the contractual … Va., 57 F.3d 385, 392 (4th Cir. 1995) (“It is established, however, that a finding of ‘technical impairment’ is insufficient . . . .”).

Mitchell Jackson v. Ron Herrington

393 F. App'x 348 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 31, 2010

Jackson qualifies for the good-cause exception. Rule 4 requires plaintiffs to serve each defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 4(c)(1). … Barkley, 219 F.3d 132, 140 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that summary judgment for defendant officials on the basis of qualified immunity was improper, given officials’ indefinite refusal to treat plaintiff’s cavity), the court

United States v. Lonardo

350 F.2d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 1965

Whatever inconsistency there was between Flonnoy’s interview statements and her court testimony was clearly brought out. … But if “the very same information” is intended to include situations where the contents of the destroyed notes may be established by the living testimony of witnesses, it has been shown here that the 302 reports actually

Jeffrey Wogenstahl v. Betty Mitchell

668 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

Thus, the state court’s conclusion that Wogenstahl was not prejudiced by the withheld evidence was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. … That is, habeas relief may be granted only if the state court’s determination is found to be an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Darryl M. Durr v. Betty Mitchell, Warden

487 F.3d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2007

health was at issue), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 955 , 166 L.Ed.2d 730 (2007). 35 In short, the state court's decision was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. … Nevertheless, for the reasons just discussed, this case is distinguishable from DePew, and therefore, is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 4 4.

Thompson v. Henderson

226 F. App'x 466 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 2007

To successfully establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: “1) he is an individual with a disability; 2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the job requirements … In the instant case, the record clearly indicates that Lee could not perform her job.

Reddrick v. Curran

872 F.2d 1028 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 31, 1989

872 F.2d 1028 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 … Sec. 636 (c) was incorrect because it was based upon the misapplication of the law concerning motions for summary judgment and qualified immunity.

United States v. Edgar Lerma Flores

704 F. App'x 445 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2017

But what they did not show, and what Olvera was required to establish, was that he was substantially less culpable than the average participant. … Defendant offers no reason why these findings are clearly erroneous.

Sally J. Childs v. Green Local School District

810 F.2d 200 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 1986

Stroup was overall the better qualified candidate for the position of band director was not motivated by discriminatory intent. … Childs was qualified for the position in terms of education and experience and had received favorable recommendations from previous employers. 12 In his opinion, the district judge concluded that Childs had established a

Cynthia Grant v. Rockwell International Corp.

811 F.2d 605 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 29, 1986

The court clearly did not hold that a uniform probationary period imposed on all new employees creates a contract of employment terminable only for just cause. … A district court's "[f]indings of fact ... shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous." Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

Howard v. Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools

70 F. App'x 272 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2003

We further note that most of the incidents do not establish discrimination for yet another reason, i.e., Howard failed to adduce evidence at trial establishing that she was treated differently from simi *281 larly situated … In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII.

Robert J. Kondrat v. Hon. Frank D. Celebrezze, Chief Justice, Ohio Supreme Court

793 F.2d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 1986

The district court granted the motion to dismiss on the grounds of judicial immunity. 3 Judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); King v. … Clearly, entering an order dismissing an appeal is a judicial act, and Justice Celebrezze is entitled to absolute immunity.