Case law

United States v. Daniel Joseph Kekich

463 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 1972

V) ; Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114 , 66 S.Ct. 423 , 90 L.Ed. 567 (1946); United States v. Willard, 312 F.2d 605 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 960 , 83 S.Ct. 1014 , 10 L.Ed.2d 13 (1963). … United States v. Pompey, 445 F.2d 1313 (3rd Cir. 1971); United States v. Griffin, 434 F.2d 740 (6th Cir. 1970); Robertson v. United States, 417 F.2d 440 (5th Cir.), en banc; McCoy v.

Wilson v. United States

109 F.2d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 1940

First: He complains that the court erred in overruling his demurrer to the first count because it did not aver that the overt acts charged therein were done without the knowledge and consent of the board of directors of the … Williams v. Great Southern Lbr. Co., 277 U.S. 19, 26 , 48 S.Ct. 417 , 72 L.Ed. 761 . The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. '

Copper S. S. Co. v. State of Michigan

194 F.2d 465 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 18, 1952

Smith v. … Both Sections 8 and 13 refer not only to claims against the State but also to claims against its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms or agencies.

Barker v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad

959 F.2d 1361 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 1992

See Logan v. … Thus, the district court should order that an adjustment board hear plaintiffs' claims. Cf. American President Lines, Ltd. v. S.

National Labor Relations Board v. Schulte Metal Finishing, Inc.

81 F.3d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 25, 1996

Likewise, it has not filed a response to the Board's application to this court. Under these circumstances, we conclude the Board is entitled to the relief sought. See NLRB v. … Board); NLRB v.

Kingsport Utilities, Inc. v. Jon A. Lamson

257 F.2d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 1958

Coatney v. … Counsel for the defendant have cited Johnson v. Johnson City, supra, as being in conflict with the Brown case, supra.

Jonathan Jones v. Hamilton Cty. Sheriff

838 F.3d 782 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 30, 2016

The parole board would make that determination “[b]efore [Jones is] released,” and the sheriff’s office would need to “process him.” Id. at 29, 31. … No. 16-3259 Jones v. Hamilton Cty.

Nollner v. Southern Baptist Convention, Inc.

628 F. App'x 944 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 2015

See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. … Jones v. III. Cent. R. Co., 617 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir.2010).

Therese A. Farber v. Massillon Board of Education

818 F.2d 866 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 1987

FARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MASSILLON BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 86-3951. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 18, 1987. … Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 740 ; see also Ambrose v.

Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls

154 F.2d 866 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 1946

Federal Engineering Company, et al., 6 Cir., 153 F.2d 233 , decided February 6, 1946; National Labor Relations Board v. Swift & Co., 6 Cir., 127 F.2d 30, 32 ; National Labor Relations Board v. … Condenser Corp., 3 Cir., 128 F.2d 67, 71, 72 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Aluminum Products Co., 7 Cir., 120 F.2d 567, 569 ; National Labor Relations Board v. Adel Clay Products Co., 8 Cir. 134 F.2d 342, 346 .

Dr. Lani Ford v. Chancellor Roy S. Nicks

866 F.2d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 1989

. § 2000e-5(g) is Ford Motor Co. v. … See Walters v. City of Atlanta, 803 F.2d 1135, 1145 (11th Cir.1986) and Ellis v.

Ghareeb v. Ashcroft

110 F. App'x 657 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 17, 2004

INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322 , 112 S.Ct. 719 , 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). … Denko v. INS, 351 F.3d 717, 723 (6th Cir.2003).

Cincinnati Underwriters Agency Co. v. Commissioner

63 F.2d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 1933

Ed. 1154 ; United States v. Katz, 271 U. S. 354, 357 , 46 S. Ct. 513 , 70 L. … The order of the Board is affirmed.

Thompson v. Michigan Department of Corrections

23 F. App'x 486 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 3, 2001

Sanford v. Motts, 258 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir.2001); see also Mobley v. … Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1103-04 (6th Cir.1998).

Charles Ogle v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC

513 F. App'x 520 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

Blakely v. United States, 276 F.3d 853, 864 (6th Cir. 2002). We also review de novo determinations that were made under the doctrine of res judicata. Browning v. Levy, 283 F.3d 761, 771-72 (6th Cir. 2002). … Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Rachel Welty v. Bryant Dunaway

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 24, 2025

Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AS MOOT: William Powell, Gregory Briker, Shelley Calambokidis, Kelsi Brown … Fialka- Feldman v. Oakland Univ. Bd. of Trs., 639 F.3d 711, 713 (6th Cir. 2011). A live issue no longer  No. 24-5968 Welty et al. v. Dunaway et al.

Powers v. Hamilton County Public Defender Commission

501 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2007

On June 4, 2003, Powers amended his complaint to add as *598 defendants Hamilton County (the “County”) and Hamilton County’s Board of Commissioners (the “Board of Commissioners”). … In Spencer v.

Gregory v. Shelby County

220 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 12, 2000

Board of County Com’rs of Bryan County, Okl., v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 , 117 S.Ct. 1382, 1388 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) (citing Monell 436 U.S. at 690-91 , 98 S.Ct. at 2035-36 ; Adickes v. S.H. … Payne v. Board of Educ., Cleveland City Schools, 88 F.3d 392, 397 (6th Cir.1996) (citing Heeren v. City of Jamestown, 39 F.3d 628, 631 (6th Cir.1994) (citations omitted) for clear error; citing Loudermill v.

United States v. William Stivers

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2013

Election officers are appointed by the Clay County Board of Elections (the “Board”), which must also certify the results. The Board was alleged to be the racketeering enterprise in this conspiracy. … On appeal, Adams does not challenge these instructions; instead, he argues that he was not associated with the Board of Elections because (1) he was not a member of the Board, (2) he could not have controlled the Board in

Long v. General Motors Corp.

19 F. App'x 200 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2001

They appealed the local’s action to the International Executive Board, and when that action was unsuccessful, they appealed to the final authority in these matters, the Union’s Public Review Board. … See Steen v.