Case law

Jerry Parker, Jr. v. Kenneth Turner

626 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 1980

Younger established a near-absolute restraint rule when there are pending state criminal proceedings. … The Court pointed out that although immune from civil suit, state judges can be criminally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for willfully depriving a citizen of his constitutional rights.

Hobart Corp. v. Waste Management of Ohio, Inc.

758 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 14, 2014

In the early 2000s, the EPA discovered that the soil and groundwater “had concentrations [of these substances] above background levels or maximum contaminant levels as established by the EPA.” … (Appellants also agreed to reimburse the government for response costs in the ASAOC, which clearly falls on the contribution side of the divide.)

United States v. Timothy John Lewis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 2025

June 14, 2006; and 2014 offenses qualified as different occasions to justify imposing the ACCA’s mandatory minimum … Because Lewis’s 2014 offense qualifies as a violent felony for ACCA purposes, his qualifying offense count begins at one, so only two of his 2006 burglary convictions had to occur on different occasions to trigger the enhancement

United States v. James R. Hoffa, United States of America v. Thomas Ewing Parks, United States of America v. Larry Campbell, United States of America v. Ewing King

382 F.2d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 14, 1967

Although she claims she met the judge, she qualifies her identification by stating that she knows he is the same person whom she saw on television and whose picture she had seen in a newspaper. … Consequently the trial judge was exceptionally qualified to pass on the affidavits.

Bell v. Bell

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 4, 2008

Clearly Strickler was quoting Murray to establish that “interference by officials” constituted cause–as discussed above, Strickler did not attach legal relevance to the petitioner’s potential inability to discover the Brady … Instead, the parties disputed whether Bell’s evidence established such an agreement.

Luther Poynter v. Aaron Shirley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2026

Doubly so when “judges or juries are [no] better qualified than appropriate professionals in making such decisions.” Id. at 322–23. … The only logical answer is none, so such an interpretation clearly cannot be reconciled with Brawner.

John B. v. M. Goetz, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2008

These procedures clearly do not take adequate account of federalism and comity considerations. … Certainly, state officials are not immune from complying with federal discovery mandates.

Associated Builders & Contractors v. Perry

16 F.3d 688 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 1994

Because they faced possible prosecution under the new law, these physicians clearly had standing to bring suit against the state officials enforcing the law. Id. at 64 , 106 S.Ct. at 1704 . … I do not read Diamond to establish the rule that no private party intervenor can have standing to pursue an appeal that an original state party declines to bring, and to the extent that this court establishes such a rule

Rawe v. Liberty Mutl Fire

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 2006

This test, established by the Supreme Court of Kentucky in Wittmer v. … Rawe’s previous suit under the UIM policy does not prospectively immunize the defendant from liability for future actionable conduct for bad faith.

Duha v. Agrium, Incorporated

448 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 23, 2006

Agrium had not established "good cause" to file additional record evidence. … Courts have asserted broad leeway under the transfer statute to define which subsets of claims qualify as separate civil actions. See Wyndham Assocs. v.

Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. General Electric Co.

246 F. 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 6, 1917

So many applications have been made of the rule, thus so clearly stated, that it is not necessary to refer to more of them than appear in the opinion in that case. … Winsor was intended toi be qualified by the remarks of Mr. Justice Clifford in Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 46 , 25 L. Ed. 68 , or Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96, 105 , 26 L. Ed. 54 .

United States v. Stephanie Arzola

528 F. App'x 487 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2013

Surveillance was established and trash pulls were conducted on ten occasions between May 29 and August 27, 2009. … Arzola claims that the district court erred in denying her a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and early plea because “it is clearly established that [she admitted] to her wrongdoing.”

Weaver v. The University Of Cincinnati

970 F.2d 1523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 1992

The plaintiffs and the court recognized that the state and high state officials were immune from any claim for damages, but sought declaratory and injunctive relief against implementation of a state statute permitting a fair … Hudson implicitly recognizes that it is the government employer and the union who share the duty in establishing a constitutionally valid fair share procedure.

Volasco Products Co. v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co.

308 F.2d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 12, 1962

Corporations are separate entities, having various privileges, immunities and responsibilities, including the rights to sue and be sued. … The court held that there was an injury and that the alleged acts of the defendants were clearly the direct and proximate cause of the injury. Counsel for plaintiff quote from the opinion in this case.

Henderson v. Selective Insurance

369 F.2d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 23, 1966

During the course of the trial, a directed verdict was entered as to Louisville on the express ground that there was insufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship between Louisville and Martin. … American Employers Insurance Company, 209 F.2d 60 (C.A. 6) which is heavily relied upon by Allstate is not clearly in point.

Muhammad Abdur-Rahman v. Bradley Settles

848 F.2d 188 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 16, 1988

At that time, he informed Thrames that while Allen had presented the misconduct report to him, Allen had not reviewed it with him and was not qualified to review it. … Parratt is not applicable to claims based on a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal laws other than the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. See Hayes v.

C.H. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 2020

Therefore, this Court may only reverse the district court’s conclusion as to Defendants’ motion if it finds that the ruling was arbitrary, unjustifiable, or clearly unreasonable.” F.T.C. v. E.M.A. … It established that Fairview would pay a flat fee for prenatal visits but that WHS would directly bill the Kentucky Medicaid Program or other third‑party payors for its delivery services.

United States v. 150 Acres of Land

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 20, 2000

In addition to establishing the foregoing, the defendant must establish that he has satisfied the requirements of … Under these circumstance we hold simply that, at statutory definition is clearly dependent on the totality of the this time, we cannot state as a matter of law that Ethel’s circumstances.

Hartz v. Cleveland Block Co.

95 F. 681 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 1899

Even if clearly proven, it is not such a contract as a court of equity should specifically enforce. Dalzell v. Manufacturing Co., 149 U. S. 315 -323, 33 Sup. Ct. 886. … The evidence introduced in support of the plea tends to establish an agreement still more indefinite and unconscionable. The truth of the agreement as averred is not proven to our satisfaction.

Lamont James Miller v. Gene E. Borgert, J. Makowski, D. Thomas, Sgt., M. Niles, Van Sumerin, G.E. Slusher, J. Richardson, D. Bartels, Hamilton, Dr.

919 F.2d 738 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 6, 1990

919 F.2d 738 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 … The district court made no definitive ruling as to whether the defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor on this claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity, and we decline to decide that issue without benefit