Case law

Johnson City Medical Center v. United States

999 F.2d 973 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 9, 1993

Specifically, the hospital contends that the statute which establishes the categories of FICA-exempt employment specifically directs that eligibility for exemptions be determined on a "pay period" basis. 26 U.S.C. § 3121 … This figure was strongly contested on appeal, but I cannot say that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous.

John Ray v. Duncan MacLaren

655 F. App'x 301 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 5, 2016

established federal law.” … For purposes of AEDPA, “clearly established Federal law” means only the holdings from Supreme Court cases, not its dicta, Howes v. Fields, 132 S.

United States v. Sandra Bailey

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 1, 2020

When a witness is brought back to testify “before the defendant has presented any evidence, it is unlikely that prejudice sufficient to establish an abuse of discretion can be established.” United States v. … Bryan, Sandra, and Calvin continued to sell DMEs to individuals insured by Medicare who did not qualify.

United States v. Patrick Craig Harrison

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

To establish plain error, Harrison must show “(1) an error, (2) that was obvious or clear, (3) that affected his substantial rights, and (4) that affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of his judicial proceedings … Harrison assessment is thus mandatory for any non-indigent defendant guilty of a qualifying offense. United States v. Shepherd, 922 F.3d 753, 757 (6th Cir. 2019).

Carol Peck v. Elyria Foundry Co.

347 F. App'x 139 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2009

Under this framework, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 414 (6th Cir.2004). … Next, we examine whether Peck was qualified for positions at the foundry.

United States v. Mays

285 F. App'x 269 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2008

From Bloor’s testimony, the district court properly concluded that the conduct of Mays and his OMC cohorts would have qualified as first degree murder under § 1111 had a killing resulted from the drive-by shooting. … Bloor’s testimony establishes that the group decided to go to the clubhouse in a show of force and armed with weapons.

United States v. Carale Shields

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

“A district court abuses its discretion where ‘it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when it improperly applies the law or uses an erroneous legal standard.’” United States v. … But if a defendant is unable to establish a fair and just reason for withdrawal, “it is not necessary for the Court to consider prejudice to the Government.” Hockenberry, 730 F.3d at 662.

Cedric Williams v. Pledged Property II, LLC

508 F. App'x 465 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 13, 2012

In the period between Schering-Plough and this case, the Michigan Court of Appeals has clearly interpreted § 566.132(2) to include promises to delay foreclosure sales, holding that “an agreement to delay a foreclosure sale … Upon establishing the elements of unjust enrichment, the law will imply a contract, but only if there is no express contract governing the same subject matter. Belle Isle Grill Corp. v.

Frank M. Ockerman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, (92-5265) v. May Zima & Company, (92-5266)

27 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 1994

Similarly, although each living unit was to have a full kitchen, the bond counsel opined that, if the units had kitchens, the bonds would not qualify for tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code. … The purpose of requiring reliance is to establish a causal connection between the defendants’ alleged fraud and the plaintiffs decision to purchase the security.

Terry Tilley v. Kalamazoo County Road Comm'n

654 F. App'x 675 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 2016

The cited sections from the personnel manual quite clearly match with the factual allegations identified above. … Bartholomew before the July 28, 2011 deadline is . . . just plain false, and so it is clearly pretextual.”

Paul McKay v. Reliance Standard Life Insuran

428 F. App'x 537 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 2011

To the same end, it is undisputed that McKay attempted to claim benefits from Unum by establishing a disability date prior to January 1, 2004. … Reliance clearly opposed remand.

Todd Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of North America

780 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 2015

Rather, it speaks of injury for which adequate relief has not been elsewhere provided, uses the qualifying terms “likely” and “normally,” and ultimately focuses on the governing word “appropriate.” … Given the objectives of the ERISA statute, the case explains, “it is hard to imagine why Congress would want to immunize breaches of fiduciary obligation that harm individuals by denying injured beneficiaries a remedy.”

Gregory Thompson v. Ricky Bell, Warden

373 F.3d 688 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 2004

Thompson's attorneys are clearly officers of the court, see generally Hickman v. … It quite clearly did exist, and that evidence was in habeas counsel's possession, via Dr.

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.

1 F.3d 1487 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 14, 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. … Olson, 487 U.S. 654 , 108 S.Ct. 2597 (1988). 58 However, we believe that even if this trend by the Supreme Court may be said to vindicate the "a little separation is enough" view of this essential doctrine, the case at bar clearly

Buckeye Union Insurance Co. v. Union Chain Division of Litton Systems, Inc.

767 F.2d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 1985

Sec. 2307.31, and the workers' compensation immunity statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. … To extend an employer's liability beyond the scope of the workers' compensation laws under the guise of contribution in favor of a joint tortfeasor would be perverting the act clearly beyond its legislative purpose.

United States v. Dekeilon Marquel Johnson

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 2024

Specifically, the district court found that “the facts established here by a preponderance of the evidence . . . demonstrate that the defendant is dangerous” and “a danger to this community.” Id. … In Clark, we clearly stated that, although Circuits differ as to the applicable rule, “[w]e adopt a time-of-conviction rule.” 46 F.4th at 408.

Randle Griffin v. Louis Condon

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 8, 2018

Qualified immunity insulates government officials from monetary liability if the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the incident. See Bays v. … The same principle thus was clearly established in 2011, when Griffin received the tickets. That principle allowed liability here.

Boback v. General Motors Corp.

107 F.3d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 3, 1997

Holding that the plaintiff had presented insufficient evidence to establish that he was a "qualified individual" protected by the ADA, the court stated: 11 As to possible accommodations which would have enabled him to perform … Accordingly, because Boback has failed to establish that he was a "qualified individual with a disability" with respect to these three positions, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants

Ask Chemicals, LP v. Computer Packages, Inc.

593 F. App'x 506 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 10, 2014

Russell because, although the court decided that he was qualified as an expert, it also found his report to be insufficiently reliable. … The district court found that the experience, education, and professional qualifications of ASK’s witness, Russell, properly qualified him as an expert.

United States v. Elson

577 F.3d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2009

the government “established] that the damages [Bourke] sustained amounted to $744,424.66.” … Paul qualifies as a victim for purposes of the MVRA. In addition, contrary to Elson’s argument that St. Paul’s losses on the sale of its judgment resulted from business reasons, St.