Case law

Memphis Consolidated Gas & Electric Co. v. Letson

135 F. 969 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 1905

W. 967 , to review elaborately its many decisions, for the purpose of ascertaining and stating clearly and concisely what the law now-is. … Portions which, detached from the context, might seem to be misleading, are qualified or corrected by what succeeds.

United States v. Rossen Iossifov

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 12, 2022

Viewed in isolation, the evidence may have been material insofar as it qualified Leopard’s statements in regard to Iossifov’s guilty mind. … And “[u]nder the clearly erroneous standard,” even “[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. United States v.

United States v. Mahmoud Salti

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2009

The petitioner ultimately bears the burden of establishing the petitioner’s third-party claim by a preponderance of the evidence: If, after the hearing, the court determines that the petitioner has established … App’x 814, 817 (6th Cir. 2009), we previously indicated that a constructive trust would qualify as a “superior” interest under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A).

United States v. Antwaun Demetrius Allen

93 F.4th 350 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 2024

Putting aside the propriety of raising an entirely new argument in response to the Bostic question, Allen’s response to the Bostic question did not clearly indicate he was raising a separate argument about government provocation … Likewise, this record does not show that “[Allen]’s sentencing was marked by ‘significant procedural error’” qualifying as “a plain error.” Simmons, 587 F.3d at 363 (quoting Gall v.

Bank One of Cleveland, N.A. v. Abbe

916 F.2d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 1990

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C). 4 “It is well-established ... that district court dismissal orders under this rule are reviewable only for abuse of discretion.” Regional Refuse Sys. v. … In their disqualification motion, defendants alleged that Roetzel & Andress was *1082 not qualified to represent the banks by virtue of the fact that Roger J.

United States v. Troy Walker

450 F. App'x 464 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 2011

list of procedural errors, including “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly … SORNA instead established his registration obligations and offense level under federal law. Thus, there was no “retroactivity” in Walker’s Tier III SORNA classification.

Joostberns v. United Parcel Services

166 F. App'x 783 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2006

To establish a prima facie case for retaliation under FMLA, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that he or she availed himself of a protected right under the FMLA; (2) that he or she was adversely affected by an employment … Thus, Plaintiff clearly established the first two elements of a prima facie case: (1) exercise of a right, and (2) adverse employment decision.

Sylvester Jones v. Robert Mossing, Clerk And, Unknown Judge for United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

791 F.2d 933 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 1986

791 F.2d 933 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 … Sec. 1915 (d) because it was clearly frivolous. See Brooks v. Dutton, 751 F.2d 197, 199 (6th Cir. 1984).

Appalachian Volunteers, Inc. v. Charles Clark, Edward Lee Blankenship v. Clarles Clark

432 F.2d 530 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 1970

The respondent here has intimated that the Act only establishes a “principle of comity,” not a binding rule on the power of the federal courts. … Legislative policy is here expressed in a clear-cut prohibition qualified only by specifically defined exceptions.” Amalgamated Clothing Workers v.

John Doe, I v. Daniel Cummins

662 F. App'x 437 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 6, 2016

The district court also found that, irrespective of any due-process concerns, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for appellants’ § 1983 damages claims. … Doe I’s suspension clearly implicates a property interest. See Jaksa v. Regents of Univ. of Mich., 597 F. Supp. 1245, 1247–48 (E.D. Mich. 1984).

Herman Miller, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Palazzetti Imports and Exports, Inc., Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

270 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 22, 2001

Established place in the market There is no market-share information presented. … If anything, it qualifies as evidence of direct consumer testimony, along with the other testimony that Herman Miller has provided.

United States v. Steven G. Clark

385 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 16, 2004

Agent Poffs so-called “rough notes” of Defendant’s interrogation qualify as such a written record. … A court’s failure to grant a downward departure is not reviewable even if based on clearly erroneous findings of fact. See United States v.

Dyke v. Dyke

227 F.2d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 1, 1955

Ballou, who conceded that, when the mother brought the insured to him, he was not qualified to make a psychiatric examination. … We think Judge Taylor was clearly right. He adhered to the principles of the federal decisions. 14 In Clearfield Trust Co. v.

United States v. Jeremy Lee Chavis

296 F.3d 450 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2002

Trial testimony established that Chavis and Langbein jointly approached Chmie-lewski about purchasing the handguns and traveled to the gun store on two occasions together with Chmielewski. … Because the joint trial of the two offenses was improper, therefore, Chavis was not obliged to accept responsibility for both offenses in order to qualify for the adjustment.

Oakland Cnty. Emp. Retirement Sys. v. Sotera Health Co.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 24, 2026

continually monitor the performance of all our tire lines, and the objective data clearly reinforces our belief that these are high-quality, safe tires,” was material. Monroe, 399 F. 3d. at 671-72 (emphasis added). … And Sotera never represented guaranteed litigation success or immunity from litigation.

United States v. Simpson

113 F. App'x 150 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 2, 2004

Ajan claims that his prior conviction for simple robbery in Louisiana does not qualify as a crime of violence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. … Having failed to prove the district court committed clear error in refusing to grant him a two-level downward departure as a minor participant, he even more clearly failed to prove he qualified as a minimal participant

United States v. Smith

139 F. App'x 681 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 18, 2005

Based on these records, the FBI began approaching individual voters, who were promised immunity for their cooperation in the investigation. … Clearly, these witnesses were not proffering evidence of “other acts” under Rule 404(b).

Merrianne Weberg v. Randy Franks

229 F.3d 514 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 2000

Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) test, noting that to prove an equal protection claim under section 1983 a plaintiff must establish the same elements required to establish a disparate treatment … Lauderdale’s link to the instant conspiracy is most clearly revealed by the timing and content of her Incident Report regarding the Massenburg incident.

Roger Miller Music v. Sony/ATV Publishing

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 2007

Rather, a motion under Rule 59(e) “must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d at 16; FDIC v. … Winchester-Conant Prop., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 40 (1st Cir. 2003) (“Uses of the copyrighted work that stay within the scope of a nonexclusive license are immunized from infringement suits.”).

Beshkenadze v. Gonzales

238 F. App'x 49 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2007

Gonzales “The asylum applicant bears the burden of establishing that he or she qualifies as a refugee ‘either because he or she has suffered past persecution or because he or she has a well-founded fear of future … So, too, is “the need to review a clearly erroneous factual determination by an immigration judge.” Id. § 1003.1(e)(6)(v).