Case law

United States v. John Bruce Hubbard

16 F.3d 694 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 30, 1994

First, his misrepresentations were clearly material under the standard set out in United States v. Steele, 933 F.2d 1313, 1319 (6th Cir.) … In order to show ineffective assistance of counsel, Hubbard must establish two things: First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient.

State of Tenn. v. Dep't of Educ.

104 F.4th 577 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 14, 2024

They clearly can be interpreted as desiring a change in voluntary policies by recipients of federal funding. … Cir. 2013) (interpretative rules “do not establish a binding norm”).

Remus v. United States

291 F. 501 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 30, 1923

The allegations of this indictment first above quoted clearly charges an existing conspiracy entered into between the defendants on April 20, 1919, and continuing until the time of the finding and presentation of the indictment … The Crawford Case holds simply that an employé of the United States is not a qualified juror in-a case where the defendant is on trial for conspiracy against the United States.

Na'im A. Abdul-Mateen v. Robert Moton, Case Manager at State Prison of Southern Michigan Brian Watson, Assistant Deputy Warden

19 F.3d 1432 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 22, 1994

19 F.3d 1432 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished … Moreover, defendant Moton is not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to present evidence at a disciplinary hearing is well-established. See Hewitt v.

United States v. Jamieson

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 28, 2005

As Jamieson explained, an individual with AIDS could answer falsely on insurance applications, indicating that he had no serious illnesses, and thus qualify for the life insurance. … Shortly after Jamieson was indicted, the trial court appointed two qualified defense attorneys to represent him.

United States v. Thomas James Sinito

723 F.2d 1250 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 1984

Moreover, the prior conviction for RICO related solely to loansharking and did not immunize defendant from criminal liability for all other misdeeds. , In a memorandum opinion, the district court denied defendant’s motion … Clearly, it is distinguishable from the Appliance Mart, which was a supposed legal enterprise from which illegal loansharking was conducted.

United States v. Eddie Louis Taylor

917 F.2d 1402 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 25, 1990

We find it particularly relevant that the least qualified officer, Sergeant Eldridge, led the pursuit. … We conclude, however, that such a finding was clearly erroneous.

United States v. Mario Alfaro-Flores

446 F. App'x 753 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2011

However his account was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with other evidence that established he had engaged in trafficking of large quantities of cocaine. … Contrary to Alfaro-Flores’s assertion, “the fact that [he] qualified for a two-level acceptance of responsibility reduction under § 3E1.1 does not establish eligibility for a safety valve reduction under § 5C1.2.”

Kent v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

170 F.2d 131 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 27, 1948

He subsequently qualified for and obtained a pilot’s license in 1927. In 1934, he organized Southern Air Services, Inc., which operated charter flying service and a training school for flying. … This appears clearly erroneous, for the evidence is undisputed that petitioner first bought the stock in January, 1934, and that the loss deduction was for different stock that petitioner had sold in prior years.

Donna Dutton v. Jimmy Shaffer

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 2026

A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on “clearly erroneous findings of fact or when it improperly applies the law.” Herman Miller, Inc. v. … It is well-established that a litigant subject to a threat of enforcement need not await “actual arrest, prosecution, or other enforcement action” to establish injury in fact.

Derek Block v. James Canepa

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2026

The district court found that all of these individuals were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed the claims against them. … Throughout this suit, Plaintiffs have clearly limited their challenge specifically to “the provisions in Ohio Rev.

Norman Norris v. Premier Integrity Solutions, Inc

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 2011

IV In view of our holding that Premier’s direct observation method was not an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, we need not consider Premier’s contention that it had qualified immunity for its action … To establish the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Kentucky, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct “has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond

United States v. Miller

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 11, 2006

[but] is clearly not meant to provide them with a technical legal advantage if, not having learned a lesson, they continue their criminal conduct.” 747 F. Supp. at 376. … Consequently, Miller cannot qualify for a 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) sentence enhancement without our completely disregarding 28 U.S.C. § 1738.

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Marriott Corp.

631 F.2d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 2, 1980

He found nothing in Norwalk Victory which qualified this rule. Implicit in the holding is the assumption that liability for the tort existed on other grounds. In Petition of Chadade Steamship Co. … The statutes, 33 U.S.C. §§ 403 and 409, 5 clearly state a policy against obstruction of navigable waters.

Byrd v. Collins

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 2000

The essence of Petitioner’s claim on appeal is that qualifying’ juries in capital cases.” … These improperly in allowing the jury to be “death-qualified,” and factual findings establish, among other things, that Armstead in admitting improper evidence and allowing improper “received no bargain or deal

Kessler v. Visteon Corp

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 2006

In their complaint, the Kesslers clearly alleged a breach of this duty. … This evidence and analysis is proper where it is used to establish that the danger was open and obvious.

American Strawboard Co. v. Haldeman Paper Co.

83 F. 619 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 7, 1897

It did not relate to something which was not “in being at the time,” and clearly falls within the first and sixth' resolutions of Spencer’s Case, 5 Coke, 16; Vyvyan v. Arthur, 1 Barn. & C. 410; Tatem v. Chaplin, 2 H. … -The stipulation relates to the mode in which the premises conveyed are to be enjoyed, and qualifies the estate.

Corn v. Morgan

97 F.3d 1451 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 25, 1996

Moreover, a district court may dismiss a case as frivolous when it is based on claims that lack an arguable basis in law, such as when the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity or when the alleged infringement is of … a legal interest which clearly does not exist.

Tracy Hannah v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2021

Servs., 905 F.2d 129, 135 (6th Cir. 1990) (“For the purposes of the EAJA, the more clearly established are the governing norms, and the more clearly they dictate a result in favor of the private litigant, the less ‘justified … See Perket, 905 F.2d at 135 (“For the purposes of the EAJA, the more clearly established are the governing norms, and the more clearly they dictate a result in favor of the private litigant, the less ‘justified’ it is for

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Afl-Cio, and Teamsters Local Union No. 2727 v. United Parcel Service Co.

447 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 26, 2006

Even if UPS had failed to “treat with” Tulipana in this safety committee position, the district court held that “the dispute ... qualified as ‘minor’ under the Railway Labor Act [and] was committed to the exclusive jurisdiction … In a letter dated April 2, 2003, UPS’s Labor Manager, Bob Ragar, explained to the President of Local 2727, Joe Darmento, that “Article 20, Section 4 [ (b), (c) and (d) ] of the CBA clearly refers to [the] individuals being