Case law

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

563 F.3d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 2009

The Socorro site qualifies as an “additional site” because it was not listed as a “liquidated site” or a “debtor-owned site” under the 1996 Bankruptcy Settlement Agreement. … The EPA established past costs of $965,530.54, which, at a rate of 37% per the 1996 Bankruptcy Settlement Agreement, amounts to $357,246.

Philip Bartling v. Fruehauf Corporation

29 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 1995

The documents requested included: 6 (1) the Pension Plan; 7 (2) the December 1986 amendment to the Plan; 8 (3) the most recent favorable letter issued by the IRS relating to the tax-qualified status of the Plan; 9 (4) filings … "[W]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous." Bueno v.

United States v. Reesor

10 F. App'x 297 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 7, 2001

The defendant bears the burden of showing that a new trial ought to be granted, and must establish that: (1) the new evidence was discovered after the trial; (2) the evidence could not have been discovered earlier with due … The finding of the district court that Reesor was not a minimal participant is not clearly erroneous.

Marilyn Crossley v. Kettering Adventist Healthcare

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 2024

Isaac stated that she had some concerns about Crossley coming back full-time, because Crossley had told her that she was keeping herself in isolation and her lack of immunity was “wiping her out.” … Invitation to Reapply The ADA dictates that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to . . .

Gooch v. Life Investors Insurance Co. of America

672 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 10, 2012

This standard is clearly wrong. A “limited factual inquiry” assuming plaintiffs allegations to be true does not constitute the required “rigorous analysis” we have repeatedly emphasized. … We nevertheless adhere to the well-established principle that a preliminary injunction makes a prediction about the merits ruling and is not itself a merits ruling.

Christopher Hardy v. Maggie Beightler

538 F. App'x 624 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2013

Clearly established federal law is to be determined by the holdings of the United States Supreme Court; however, an explicit statement by the Court is not mandatory. … “[T]he legal principles and standards flowing from [Supreme Court] precedent” also qualify as “clearly established law.” Ruimveld v. Birkett, 404 F.3d 1006, 1010 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Taylor v.

Galenski v. Ford Motor Co. Pension Plan

290 F. App'x 815 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2008

The key to this case was overlooked by the district court: the Ford pension plan clearly provides that the No. 07-1914 Galenski v. … The plain language of the Guidelines, therefore, establishes that Marilyn is only entitled to the pre-retirement surviving spouse benefits, regardless of what the Qualified Domestic Relations Order says.

Schaffer v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.

74 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 6, 1996

The district court found that Defendants’ products qualified as an improvement to real property, and thus the statute barred Plaintiffs’ claims. J.A. at 2165-66. … Ohio courts have clearly held that strict liability may result from a failure to warn. See Crislip v.

Adam Wayne D. Ex Rel. David D. v. Beechwood Independent School District

482 F. App'x 52 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2012

Although Adam again failed to score low enough to qualify for special education services, Beechwood gave Adam remedial reading instruction. … This Court then applies “a clearly erroneous standard of review to the district court’s findings of fact, and a de novo standard of review to its conclusions of law.”

Giles v. University of Toledo

286 F. App'x 295 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 16, 2008

Your email clearly indicates that you will not be returning to the University at any acceptable time. J.A. at 671 (12/9/03 West Ltr. to Giles). … There is no dispute between the parties about whether Giles established the first three elements of a prima facie case; Giles established that he is a member of a protected class as an African-American, was qualified for

United States v. Cundiff

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2009

“The defendants bear the burden of establishing both that they qualify for one of the exemptions of § 1344(f)(1) and that their actions are not recaptured by § 1344(f)(2).” Greenfield Mills, Inc. v. … As the statute and regulations both require, the disputed activities “must be part of an established (i.e., on-going) farming, silviculture, or ranching operation” and they cease to be “established when the area on which

Robert Comer v. Warden Ohio State Penitentiary

577 F. App'x 534 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2014

Our job is to determine whether the Ohio Court of Appeals’ conclusion was an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. … At the same time, had it included a qualifier that appellant was inside his home, it was erroneous. Did the instruction constitute error without either qualifier?

Wuebker v. CIR

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 2000

The CRP was established pursuant to the Food Security ________________ Act of 1985, Pub. L. … “Rentals from real estate” is not defined by the of fact unless they are clearly erroneous and we review its statute and, therefore, the phrase must be interpreted “in legal conclusions de novo. See Kluener v.

United States v. Larry Braswell

704 F. App'x 528 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 21, 2017

Factual findings are not clearly erroneous “where there are two permissible views of the evidence.” Id. (alterations and quotation omitted). … Thus, the fact that Nationwide was overruled does not impact the precedential value of Boxley , and we continue to apply its established test for spoliation instructions. .

Lonnie Dickens v. Interstate Brands Corporation

384 F. App'x 465 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 2010

decision, (3) he was qualified for the position, and (4) he was either replaced by a person outside of the protected class or was treated differently than similarly situated non-protected employees. … An employee who steals tangible company property for his own personal use is clearly committing an offense of a qualitatively different nature than one who, apparently unsolicited, clocks a subordinate in and out.

United States v. Joseph Giacalone and One 1975 Mercury Four-Door Automobile, Maroon in Color, Bearing License Plate Number Tms 416

541 F.2d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 1976

properly draw. 44 These circumstances cannot be construed, just as easily, to support a finding that Hoffa took an unannounced vacation, or that he drove into the Michigan wilderness and committed suicide; rather, they clearly … They do not hold that the magistrate's determination is "conclusive" and therefore immune from judicial review as suggested in the majority opinion. 72 Our precedents do not support the statement in the majority opinion that

Beky Izamar Mazariegos-Rodas v. Merrick B. Garland

117 F.4th 860 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 20, 2024

The IJ clearly expressed her disapproval of Elodia’s conduct in abandoning Beky and Engly in Guatemala, and she also found Elodia’s testimony to be untruthful. … Gonzales, 408 F.3d 1239, 1247 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he harm a child fears or has suffered . . . may be relatively less than that of an adult and still qualify as persecution.” (citation omitted)); Kholyavskiy v.

Conny Moritz v. Blaine Lafler

525 F. App'x 277 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 2013

Michigan appellate court’s invocation of that rule could also qualify as a decision on the merits. … Lafler unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Our ruling in Carroll v.

O. & W. Thum Co. v. Dickinson

245 F. 609 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 1917

It is not necessary to prove intent by direct evidence, where it is clearly to be inferred from circumstances. … The theory is that it is sufficient so to qualify the use as to prevent the mischief; and this in substance is the familiar and settled rule in the courts of this country. Herring, etc., Co. v. Hall, etc., Co., 208 U.

Anacelia Perez-Roblero v. Eric Holder, Jr.

431 F. App'x 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 15, 2011

The IJ also concluded that Perez- Roblero’s providing clearly false testimony under oath demonstrated her “complete lack of veracity,” which made her unable to establish the required “good moral character” and demonstrated … Second, due to her “clearly false testimony,” Perez-Roblero was not “entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion.” A.