Case law

Everett Hadix v. Perry M. Johnson

367 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2004

Defendants have not attacked any of those factual findings as clearly erroneous. … Carson, is better qualified than plaintiffs expert, Mr. DiMascio. Mr.

Iris Rodriguez de Palucho v. Merrick B. Garland

49 F.4th 532 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 2022

II The asylum statute permits the Attorney General to grant relief from removal to immigrants who qualify as “refugee[s].” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). … “An asylum applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that she qualified as a refugee by establishing ‘either that [s]he has suffered actual past persecution or that [s]he has a well-founded fear of future persecution.’”

Superior Commc'ns v. City of Riverview, Mich.

881 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 1, 2018

The district court concluded as much, holding that “paragraph eleven qualifies Defendant’s right of approval, and alerts Plaintiff that this requisite consent will not be forthcoming if Plaintiff’s proposed replacement facilities … Burlington Broadcasters, Inc., 204 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2000), for support; however, that case involved a zoning board’s attempt to regulate radio transmission interference—a clearly regulatory decision—and was distinguished

Richard Fowlkes v. U.S. Dep't of Defense

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 8, 2025

Fowlkes must first establish a prima facie case by showing (1) “that he is disabled”; (2) “that he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodation”; (3) “that he suffered an adverse employment … While this was a vague request, Fowlkes clearly did not understand 8 No. 25-3126, Fowlkes v.

Mike's Train House v. Lionel LLC

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2006

The record clearly establishes, however, that Korean manufacturers share a common numbering system for train parts. For example, all Korean design companies assign the number “2600” to the train’s boiler. … We have also held that a district court erred by admitting expert testimony that was based “upon the opinion of others who were not even qualified as experts, nor present at the trial.” Taylor v. B.

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).

Raed Zakariya aka Robert Jameel Barbar v. Merrick B. Garland

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 29, 2024

Dec. 445, 459–60 (B.I.A. 2011) (holding that a witness was “clearly qualified to testify as an expert on military operations during the Bosnian War” based on his work experience, even though nothing in the record indicated … Zakariya contends that the IJ’s failure to qualify Smith as an expert witness was prejudicial because Smith’s “well-sourced and extensively detailed reports . . . establish [Zakariya’s] eligibility for withholding of removal

United States v. Antonio Wynn

485 F. App'x 766 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 21, 2012

These statements are not qualified by any caveat or objection to the initial premise that Wynn qualifies as a career offender. … Yet this statement does not clearly demonstrate that Wynn challenged his classification as a career offender.

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. 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.

NicSand, Inc. v. 3M Co.

507 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2007

NicSand's complaint establishes a right to relief above the speculative level. … While NicSand may have once been the dominant competitor, that former status can neither legalize 3M's anticompetitive business practices nor make 3M immune from antitrust suit.

American Town Center, (89-1153/54), (89-1722) v. Hall 83 Associates, (89-1153/54), (89-1722)

912 F.2d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 17, 1990

A copy of the January 7, 1988 letter with the signature line unobscured clearly shows that no representative of Hall 83 ever signed the letter. … A state court is as well qualified as a federal court to protect a litigant by the doctrines of res judicata [sic] and collateral estoppel.’ ” Id. at 68-69 (citation omitted).

Laszlo Berdo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

432 F.2d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 5, 1970

Respondent, who is clearly eligible for visa issuance and has the requisite quota availability, cannot take advantage of these factors anywhere but in the United States. … To establish that an alien was a member of the Communist Party within the meaning of Section 212 of the Act, the government has the burden of establishing by substantial evidence that the alien had consciously committed himself

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.

Anderson-Tully Company v. Federal Insurance Company

347 F. App'x 171 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 2009

If “parties” were a term of art that always meant “parties currently in the action,” these qualifiers — “existing” and “remaining” — would not be necessary. … So, for purposes of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which is clearly one means of crossing the threshold between the two stages, the appeal-stage side of the threshold clearly favors our construing the phrase “all parties who have

United States v. Felts

674 F.3d 599 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 2012

Rather than establishing a federal agency to implement SORNA, Congress, through its spending power, U.S. Const. Art. … Felts clearly did not comply with the Tennessee law in effect at the time, which was consistent with SORNA insofar as it provided for and required registration with a registry, and thus there is no due-process problem.

United States v. Edwin Tavarez

141 F.4th 750 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 2025

Generally, “[a] district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when it improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard.” United States v. … Under § 3853(e)(1), a district court may terminate a qualifying defendant’s supervised release only after it considers certain § 3553(a) factors and determines that termination is “warranted by the conduct of the defendant

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.

United States v. Tyrone Keys

359 F. App'x 585 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 23, 2009

Under the guidelines, defendants who “clearly demonstrate[] acceptance of responsibility for [their] offense” receive a two-level sentencing reduction, and as a general matter pre-trial guilty pleas often establish the … Keys’ attempt to brandish his gun “to assault, if not to shoot,” Hughett with it also properly qualifies as relevant conduct. R.88 at 11.