Case law

Kimberly White v. Commissioner Social Security A

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 13, 2009

If you assume that, what jobs would our hypothetical Claimant be vocationally qualified to perform? … Page 24 (refusing to consider a qualified-immunity challenge because the defendant failed to bring it to the attention of the district court).

Oscar Montes v. Jan Trombley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 17, 2010

A state-court decision is considered “contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law” if the two are “diametrically different, opposite in character or nature, or mutually opposed.” Williams v. … Alternatively, to be deemed an “unreasonable application of . . . clearly established Federal law,” a state-court decision on the merits must be “objectively unreasonable,” not simply incorrect. Id. at 409-12.

State of Ohio v. Xavier Becerra

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2023

F.D.A, 18 F.4th 499, 507 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding that “the FDA’s 2019 guidance does not qualify as ‘longstanding’”). … But patient access was clearly reduced by the 2019 Rule.

In re Aaron Hill

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 4, 2020

“[S]tate proceedings need do no more than satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in order to qualify for the full faith and credit guaranteed by federal law.” … The state court’s judgment against Hill clearly satisfied the minimum procedural requirements to establish full faith and credit in its judgment.

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.

1 F.3d 1487 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 1993

Congress may change an established time bar, even with the effect of reviving claims that would otherwise remain “dead” due to the lapse of time. … Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 , 20 L.Ed. 519 (1871) established the rule that Congress cannot ‘‘prescribe a rule for the decision of a cause in a particular way.” Klein, 80 U.S. at 146 .

Freeman v. United States Department of Labor

653 F. App'x 405 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2016

Statutory and Regulatory Background The EEOICPA established a federal compensation program. See 42 U.S.C. § 7384. … Freeman’s argument—made for the first time in her reply brief—that the DOL “improperly” relied on the opinions of the District Medical Consultants because the medical records clearly met the statutory criteria, and to the

Duane Moody v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc.

915 F.2d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 6, 1990

Moreover, Pepsi argues that even if the district court possessed a degree of discretion, it clearly abused that discretion. … Given the “well-established principle ... that appellate courts do not address claims not properly presented below,” Chandler v.

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assoc., Inc. v. Comerica Bank

562 F. App'x 312 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 2, 2014

As described below, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to conclude that none of these events gave sufficient notice. 1. … Pierce Cnty., 136 F.3d 1345 , 1350 (9th Cir.1998) (finding defendant waived its ability to appeal district court's determination that it was not entitled to qualified immunity where defendant did not cross appeal on this

Mertik v. Blalock

983 F.2d 1353 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 17, 1993

Macene, 951 F.2d at 706 . 37 Macene describes suits that fall within one of two clearly delineated categories: those involving a direct challenge to an established state procedure or those challenging random and unauthorized … Clearly, they are inappropriate in the procedural context of this case

Entertainment Productions, Inc v. Shelby County, Tennessee

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 25, 2009

“The phrase read in context of the entire definition clearly pertains and is limited to that entertainment ‘which has a significant or substantial portion of such performance, any actual or simulated performance of specified … Because we find it improbable that any performances of serious artistic value qualifying as “adult entertainment” would be staged in individualized booths, the number of ostensibly impermissible applications of the Act is

Morales v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 2, 2007

We agree with the district court, however, that that conclusion is an unreasonable application of clearly established constitutional law. … Thus, its absence cannot, as a matter of law, establish prejudice under Strickland.

United States v. Visnich

30 F. App'x 524 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 28, 2002

Whether the search qualified as a lawful inventory of the automobile’s contents or as a search incident to an arrest turns on the question of whether the police had probable cause to arrest Visnich. … While the police clearly had a reasonable basis in fact to detain Visnich to investigate the burglary complaint, the facts militate against the view that the police had probable cause to arrest him.

John W. Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc.

698 F.2d 831 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 1, 1983

On the right of privacy and right of publicity theories, the court held that these rights extend only to a "name or likeness," and "Here's Johnny" did not qualify. … Once again, Ali is clearly a "likeness" case.

United States v. Seth Bunke

412 F. App'x 760 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

The Supreme Court has explained that “the standard for determining the adequacy of that warning [is] the same as the standard for determining whether a constitutional right was ‘clearly established’ in civil litigation … However, at best, the evidence neither established that Jones tried to bite McConnell nor that McConnell actually risked being bitten.

Percy Hutton v. Betty Mitchell

839 F.3d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 12, 2016

Mitchell Page 17 Hutton has not indicated how the state’s adjudication of the claim was contrary to clearly established law. … The state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to clearly established law nor did it involve an unreasonable application of clearly established law.

Rogers v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co.

91 F. 299 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 1898

Touching the possibility of an oppressive use of power by an interested majority of shareholders, the court said: “The only unfairness or impropriety which, consistently with the admitted and established facts, could be suggested … Construing these two acts together, it clearly follows that, if any railroad corporation coming within the description of the latter act should become the purchaser of any such foreclosed railroad, such purchaser would acquire

Herron v. Jupiter Transportation Co.

858 F.2d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 3, 1988

Jam Productions Ltd., 843 F.2d 1024, 1036 (7th Cir.1988) (upheld sanctions, under Rule ll’s frivolousness clause, because once discovery was completed, plaintiffs should have known that the facts and the law clearly established … abuse of discretion predicated upon the presumption that the district court had, as a result of the proceedings, acquired an intimate knowledge of the facts and the credibility of the litigants and was, therefore, more qualified

United States v. Winton

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 23, 2007

And, under these circumstances, it was not clearly improbable that the firearm was connected to the offense. … While defendant Cook’s sentence was lengthy, he has not established that the sentence was unreasonable. See United States v.

Bruce Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc.

805 F.3d 685 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 2, 2015

The phrase “any requirement,” as used in the states’ rights savings clause, clearly encompasses common law standards. … State common law standards therefore qualify as “requirements” for purposes of the Clean Air Act states’ rights savings clause.

United States v. McGhee

161 F. App'x 441 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 6, 2005

The mere consistency between these statements is insufficient to “clearly indicate” the trustworthiness of any single statement. C. … The district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant lacked credibility. E.