Case law

Merton Bond v. Larry Raikes

899 F.2d 14 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 1990

899 F.2d 14 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service … An example of a case lacking an arguable basis in law is a case involving an immunity defense. 109 S.Ct. at 1833 . 4 Here the state court judge was clearly acting in his judicial capacity when he decided Bond's malpractice

45 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1721, 45 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,778 Frances Jones, Beverly Harder, Eleanor Murray, Linda Nickel, and Mary Ruane v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 299

838 F.2d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 1989

A remand for purposes of considering that limited area of liability and potential damages in the case of qualified plaintiffs who sought such positions is accordingly directed. … a defense, not to establish the duty upon which the action is based.

PHN Motors, LLC v. Medina Township

498 F. App'x 540 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2012

The appellants appear to argue, however, that Medina has failed to adequately “establish a substantial interest in support of the regulation.” … Medina has clearly identified two substantial interests, which have long been determined to clearly qualify as such in the context of the Central Hudson test. First, Medina points to aesthetics.

United States v. McAllister

31 F. App'x 859 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 14, 2002

He qualified this latter statement by admitting that he was unsure whether it came from the vehicle. 1 Officer Booker later stated that he did not smell marijuana. … Clearly, “nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion.” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 , 120 *865 S.Ct. 673, 676 , 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000).

Estate of Isaiah Andrews v. City of Cleveland, Ohio

112 F.4th 436 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 13, 2024

And the possibility that the estates might seek indemnification does not establish that “no portion of any recovery” would come from the estates. … Rather, the majority merely notes that this is one of several murky areas of law—all of which must and have yet to be resolved in Andrews’ favor—before he can qualify for this exception of the Ohio estate statute.

Raymond Walker, Cross-Appellant v. Ted Engle, Cross-Appellee

703 F.2d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 23, 1983

Further, the defense clearly did object to the entire scheme once it became clear that Appling would not testify. … But the inquiry as to sufficiency of the evidence does not require or permit a court "to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Covington v. MCI Worldcom Network Services Inc.

93 F. App'x 837 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2004

Significantly, Amelang testified that Covington, a Manager III who had over five years of supervisory experience with various employers, was qualified to apply for the post vacated by Watson. … A single “[i]solated and ambiguous” remark unrelated to a suspect decision cannot establish discrimination. Phelps v.

Nickels v. Grand Trunk Western

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 18, 2009

Railroad Commission of Texas, 833 F.2d 570, 574 (5th Cir. 1987), FELA relief would clearly be precluded on that ground. … Mich. 1984) (concluding that walkways are a part of track structure and thus immune from additional state regulation); Black v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., 487 N.E.2d 468, 469 (Ind. Ct.

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Robert Naftaly, Township of L'Anse

452 F.3d 514 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2006

Count I alleged that Plaintiff was entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief because Congress had not clearly authorized state taxation of the real property at issue. … The Court found that while Congress could provide that real property was subject to voluntary alienation but immune from involuntary alienation, Congress’ “intent to do so should be clearly manifested.” Id. at 149 .

United States v. Susan Pioch

902 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2018

McKnight and Pioch concede that Olson was qualified to offer this opinion, but dispute its reliability. District courts are the “gatekeep[ers]” of expert testimony. Daubert v. … And the court “[v]iewed [the evidence] most favorably in support of the guilty verdict” and found it “clearly sufficient to support” Kurt’s conviction—thus applying Rule 29 and not Rule 33. Id., Pg. ID 6059.

United States v. Howard "Ace" Underhill, Daniel Rokitka, Eddie Osborne, Joe Osborne and Walter Person, United States of America v. Pat Tata and Tony Rayburn

813 F.2d 105 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 6, 1987

B. 23 The government argues that Congress did not intend to permit lawbreakers to immunize themselves from prosecution by their own acts, the criminal purpose of which made the interceptions illegal. … If Person were a mere "customer" of the gambling establishment, this argument would be worthy of consideration.

Continental Baking Company v. United States of America, American Bakeries Company v. United States of America, Colonial Baking Company of Memphis v. United States

281 F.2d 137 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 18, 1960

The objections and argument were predicated on the letters not qualifying under Title 28 U.S.C. 1732(a). That argument has been considered and found to be lacking in merit. … , is presumed to continue until the contrary is established.

Henry Ford Health System v. National Labor Relations Board

105 F.3d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 1997

Although a pre-election agreement is a binding contract between the parties, see Dacas Nursing Support Sys., Inc., 7 F.3d at 513 , "[e]ven if the pre-election stipulation clearly indicates which employees are eligible to … Thus, even if an employer and a union agree that certain employees qualify as statutory guards, the legal standard ultimately controls that determination. 43 The Beaumont situation appears to be newly discovered evidence,

Russell v. Mariani

894 F.2d 1337 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 1990

894 F.2d 1337 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 … Upon consideration, we conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed. 3 Clearly, witnesses in judicial proceedings enjoy absolute immunity from suit for damages under section 1983 for claims arising from their testimony

Mark Insko Gross v. Harold Buchignani, Individually and in His Capacity as Fayette County Jailer

842 F.2d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 22, 1988

842 F.2d 331 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 … Middleton, 555 S.W.2d 613 (Ky.App.1977). 6 Lastly, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions in arresting and detaining plaintiff pursuant to a facially valid warrant were objectively reasonable

United States v. Joe W. Fountain (92-1507) Carlton B. McEaddy (92-1866)

2 F.3d 656 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 1993

This finding of “reasonable suspicion” was not clearly erroneous. … R.Evid. 401 a qualifying phrase limiting the introduction of relevant evidence to any fact that is "of consequence to the determination of the action. ...”

Robinson v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.

918 F.2d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 1990

Accordingly, the action before us was clearly not a “case under title 11” within the meaning of section 1334(a). We do find, however, that the action was “related to” a case under section 1334(b). … California, 463 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 2841 , 77 L.Ed,2d 420 (1983), the most extensive modern treatment of the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Court explained that in order for “arising under” jurisdiction to attach, “ ‘a right or immunity

Warrior Sports, Incorporated v. NCAA

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 29, 2010

It concluded that the 2006 and 2007 Rule Changes were noncommercial and therefore immune from antitrust challenge. … “To establish that a lawful act was done with malice and without justification, the plaintiff must demonstrate, with specificity, affirmative acts by the[] defendant that corroborate the improper motive of the interference

Joy Eberline v. Douglas J. Holdings, Inc.

982 F.3d 1006 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 17, 2020

And to the extent that Douglas J fears an increase in claims related to segments of an educational relationship, we have established safeguards. … If so, then the student would qualify as an employee for all hours expended in tasks so far beyond the pale of the contemplated internship that it clearly did not serve to further the goals of the

Keshia Clemons v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2020

Because the parties and the district court discussed the Section 504 claim against Defendants generally, have made no reference to individual liability under Section 504, and have not raised the issue of qualified immunity … Clemons has established a genuine factual dispute as to whether T.W. was “otherwise qualified” for participation in the tennis program.