Case law

Howard Thomas v. Stanton Heidle

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 12, 2015

We hold that the exclusion did not amount to a violation of clearly established federal law. Even if it had, any error would have been harmless. … But we are bound by our prior precedents when they have determined—based on Supreme Court case law—that a particular law is clearly established. Smith v.

Walleon Bobo v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

665 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2012

The magistrate judge denied Bobo’s discovery motions on May 27, 2009, expressly finding that UPS had “appropriately complied with Plaintiff’s discovery request[s] by providing information [about] the sole employee [who] qualifie … UPS’s response to the Rule 59(e) motion, the district court denied it, holding that the magistrate judge’s order limiting discovery to Ronnie Wallace, the only similarly-situated supervisor as defined by UPS, was not a clearly

Brilliance Audio, Inc. v. Haights Cross Communications, Inc.

474 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2007

establishes that only musical works were considered susceptible to extensive home taping." … Since I do not read this provision pertaining to musical works to qualify the application of § 109(b) as a whole, I would find that the plaintiffs in this case have raised a claim of copyright violation, as the activities

Jolliff v. National Labor Relations Board

513 F.3d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 22, 2008

Nevertheless, the Court also recognized that protection should not be extended to deliberately or recklessly false statements: “[T]he most repulsive speech enjoys immunity provided it falls short of a deliberate or reckless … This court has held highly offensive language protected by § 7 of the Act, where it is clearly used in a rhetorical rather than a literal sense. NLRB v.

United States v. Ulysses Simpson Branch

956 F.2d 1164 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 10, 1992

In the case at bar, the government clearly proved with the testimony of Secrete and Baylor that the appellant had actual possession of the firearm. … He argued that Secrete was not qualified to testify that the phone conversant, "Mick", was the appellant.

Matthew Marble v. Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 2019

On September 5, 2013, Marble met with DCS to establish a “permanency plan” for H.S., under which the goal was to return H.S. to the custody of a parent or relative. … V DCS also argued below that it was a state agency immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Kolu Stevens v. Mich. State Court Admin. Office

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2022

Sovereign Immunity Before assessing Appellants’ First Amendment argument, we must examine Mead’s and Hefferan’s attempt to invoke sovereign immunity. … sovereign immunity, and (3) when the doctrine set forth in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), applies.” Id. at 410. The first two exceptions clearly do not apply, but the third is relevant here.

Ammex, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Michael A. Cox, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

351 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 3, 2003

Ammex’s Complaint Established the Existence of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. … The ripeness inquiry arises most clearly when litigants seek to enjoin the enforcement of statutes, regulations, or policies that have not yet been enforced against them.

Matthew Marble v. Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 2019

On September 5, 2013, Marble met with DCS to establish a “permanency plan” for H.S., under which the goal was to return H.S. to the custody of a parent or relative. … V DCS also argued below that it was a state agency immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Bryan Mobley v. Miami Valley Hospital

603 F. App'x 405 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2015

And he clearly struggled with the job, as he could service only a fraction of the rooms on his two assigned floors during any shift. … Miami Valley Hospital establish that the new position was objectively inferior. See Deleon, 739 F.3d at 921; Mitchell v.

United States v. Tommy Holmes

603 F. App'x 383 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2015

In the indictment context, “[w]here ‘on or about’ language is used, the government is not required to prove the exact date, if a date reasonably near is established.” United States v. Martin, 516 F. … If the district court chooses one of several permissible views of the evidence, its conclusion is not clearly erroneous. United States v. Worley, 193 F.3d 380, 384 (6th Cir. 1999).

Kimberly Burgess v. Paducah Area Transit Authority

387 F. App'x 538 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 13, 2010

Causation is established where the reason for the discharge is a “failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment,” or “the employee’s exercise of a right conferred by well-established legislative enactment … The issue raised by the parties is whether PATS is immune from liability because Kentucky law required it to produce the records.

Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Burns (In Re Shelton)

244 F. App'x 634 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2007

Looking at this issue anew, we conclude that our prior decision was clearly erroneous. … Thus, we conclude that our prior decision was clearly erroneous, and we must consider whether that clearly erroneous decision would work a manifest injustice.

Contract Design Group, Inc. v. Wayne State University

635 F. App'x 222 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 2015

Prior to trial, Defendants submitted a Rule 26 and Daubert motion to strike Funke’s expert report and testimony on the grounds that he failed to provide a basis for his opinions, was not specially qualified to testify, his … "[Vjague references to an issue fail to clearly present it to the district court so as to preserve the issue for appeal." Knall Beverage, Inc. v.

Wogoman v. Abramajtys

243 F. App'x 885 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2007

Trustees UMWA Combined Benefit Fund, 249 F.3d 519, 524 (6th Cir. 2001) where we stated that “[i]t is well established that a change in decisional law is usually not, by itself, an “extraordinary circumstance” meriting Rule … Petitioner clearly had notice and an opportunity to argue the issue to the district court. See Day v.

United States v. Real Property 10338 Marcy Road Northwest, Canal Winchester

659 F. App'x 212 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2016

Currency includes qualifying language that explains that evidence of insufficient legitimate income must be “unrebutted by any evidence pointing to any other source of legitimate income” before a judgment of forfeiture … Such statements clearly incorporate into Winston’s summary judgment filing the factual information contained as exhibits to his motion to dismiss the indictment.

In re Byrd

269 F.3d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 2001

The movants in Sonshine and Green could not establish cause because the new claims they sought to raise were not new or novel. … Although Byrd's initial federal habeas petition predated the effective date of the AEDPA, this attempt at filing a second habeas petition is clearly governed by the AEDPA. Cf. Slack v.

Rochelle Johnson v. Patrick Donahoe

642 F. App'x 599 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2016

The letter also instructed Johnson to report to AMC effective July 22, 2006, because there were no jobs at HCS for which she qualified. … Under this framework, Johnson must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing 1) she was a member of a protected class, 2) she suffered an adverse employment action, 3) she was qualified for the position

Flynt v. Leis

574 F.2d 874 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 12, 1978

Due process standards may perhaps differ depending on the stage of the proceedings, but here the lawyers' interest had clearly advanced to a stage where, as a matter of due process, they could not be denied the right to appear … Foster, 407 U.S. 225 , 92 S.Ct. 2151 , 32 L.Ed.2d 705 (1972) 32 See generally Jacobs, The Eleventh Amendment and Sovereign Immunity (1972) 33 Where the burden of persuasion of showing the "adequacy" or "inadequacy" of state

United States v. Martinez

302 F. App'x 379 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 3, 2008

Clearly if the jury trial and the jury verdict reflected anything, it was that this defendant was, if not the organizer, an organizer and leader of this conspiracy. … Under this standard, there is little doubt that Martinez qualifies as a leader or organizer. The evidence at trial established that Martinez engaged in prolonged and large-scale narcotics distribution.