Case law

Barbara Bowers v. The Ophthalmology Group

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 25, 2013

“The determination of whether a plaintiff qualifies as an employee under the Act ‘is a mixed question of law and fact’ that a judge normally can make as a matter of law.” Weary v. … The district court correctly held that the relevant indicia of being an “employee” are not present in this case; instead, the evidence of record clearly demonstrates that Bowers enjoyed No. 12-6129 Bowers v.

Central States, Southeast & So v. International Comfort Products

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 23, 2009

, and the party who is signatory to a contract creating the obligation to contribute is the ‘employer’ for purposes of establishing withdrawal liability.” … The contract clearly provided that costs and expenses shall include, but not be limited to, the enumerated items.

United States v. Errol Eugene Washington

127 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 1997

The Clarksville Police Department granted him immunity in exchange for Pardue’s assistance in apprehending defendant Washington, Pardue’s alleged supplier of narcotics. … That determination resulted in an enhancement of Washington’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. 6 “A district court’s determination regarding a defendant’s role in the offense is reversible only if clearly erroneous.”

L. Mallison v. Haworth Inc.

488 F. App'x 88 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2012

Each position at Haworth has a position description that clearly defines the position’s essential functions. … The evidence clearly shows that it was this discrepancy that entitled Wright and Tomczak to both a higher grade position and a higher salary.

George Paeth v. Worth Township

483 F. App'x 956 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 8, 2012

The district court also found that Cutcher was not entitled to qualified immunity, and that the Township was eligible for municipal liability. … The district court laid out its reasoning clearly, applied proper legal standards, and made mathematically sound calculations.

United States v. Cruz

270 F. App'x 393 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

We conclude that, overall, the government’s case clearly met the Jackson v. Virginia standard. … Nor does the record establish improper bolstering of the agent’s testimony.

United States v. Ricardo Alvarado

95 F.4th 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 18, 2024

“We review the district court’s legal interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo,” review “its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard,” and accord “due deference” to its application of a sentencing … The Government carries the burden of establishing the sentencing enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. See Mukes, 980 F.3d at 532, 536.

United States v. Kenneth Thomas

337 F. App'x 505 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2009

He seems to argue, though he does not do so explicitly, that the judge based his sentencing decision on clearly erroneous facts. … This argument, however, is not well-taken as the court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.

26 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1077, 26 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,066 Mzell Williams v. United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, W.D. At Cincinnati

658 F.2d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 1981

The order provided a qualified exception in instances in which any party or counsel asserted a constitutional right to communicate. The court made no findings of fact. … In all cases not provided for by rule, the district courts may regulate their practices in any manner not inconsistent with these rules. 8 28 U.S.C. § 2071 provides: The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of

Patel v. Mukasey

281 F. App'x 544 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2008

The contradictions and embellishments the first IJ noted in Patel’s testimony are clearly not mere “minor inconsistencies,” but are material to Patel’s claim in that the embellishments enhance his assertions of persecution … In order to qualify for withholding of removal, Patel must establish that there is a clear probability that he will be subjected 6 to persecution should he return to

Vencor, Inc. v. Standard Life And Accident Insurance Company

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

respect to such services.... 8 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 … As for the Outline of Benefits, the Outline itself clearly states that it is not the insurance contract and that only the actual policy provisions control.

Craig Tapke v. Tim Brunsman

565 F. App'x 430 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 1, 2014

Brunsman objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. … Identifying clearly established federal law is the “threshold question under AEDPA.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390 (2000).

In re Application to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings

939 F.3d 710 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2019

Awards of the arbitral panel are reviewable by the DIFC Court, which was also established by statute in Dubai. … In those decisions, the Second and Fifth Circuits, respectively, determined that the word “tribunal” in § 1782(a) does not clearly exclude private arbitrations but that the scope of the word is ambiguous.

Norfolk S. R.R. Co. v. Dille Road Recycling, LLC

94 F.4th 517 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 2024

But it does seek more than the preservation or establishment of crossings over rail property. … That case clearly concerned one of the “routine, nonexclusive” easements that generally avoid preemption.

Samuel Cano-Huerta v. Eric Holder, Jr.

568 F. App'x 371 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2014

If the applicant establishes past persecution, he is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he will be persecuted if returned. Khozhaynova v. … He clearly discussed the past persecution standard and argued that he was entitled to the presumption of future persecution. AR 18–21.

Pure Tech Systems, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance

95 F. App'x 132 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2004

In particular, “[w]hen an insurance policy includes ambiguous exclusions, ‘a general presumption arises to the effect that that which is not clearly excluded from the operation of such contract is included in the operation … This case does not present the issue of whether the waste material regularly accepted by Pure Tech in the course of its business qualifies as a “pollutant,” and we decline to reach the issue.

Alton Coleman v. Betty Mitchell, Warden

268 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 2001

However, both Irvin and Rideau involved clearly established actual prejudice. … Goldman, M.D., found that Petitioner qualified as a “Borderline Personality”. (J.A. at 895.)

Parsons v. United States Department of Justice

878 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 2017

Cir. 2003) (finding that an investigative report recommending voluntary corrective action did not cause legal consequences because “the request for voluntary compliance clearly ha[d] no legally binding effect,” and “the agency … As noted above, the presumed “coercive pressures [placed] on third parties” by an informational agency report do not qualify as legal consequences. Flue-Cured Tobacco, 313 F.3d at 859.

United States v. Eddie Louis Taylor

956 F.2d 572 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 10, 1992

Clearly, the officers must operate within the dictates of the established fourth amendment doctrine for the proscription of “unreasonable” searches and seizures. See Brown v. … Since the record clearly established that the officers seized Taylor, we must now determine whether the seizure was constitutionally permissible.

Terrance Walter v. Bennie Kelly

653 F. App'x 378 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2016

Likewise, the Supreme Court did not announce any clearly established law on timeliness in Martinez. … Not only does Moore not qualify as clearly established federal law under § 2254(d), it is also readily distinguishable.