Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.47s
Pamela Rheinfrank v. Abbott Laboratories
680 F. App'x 369 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 21, 2017
THEREFORE, ANTIEPILEPSY DRUGS SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED TO WOMEN OF CHILDBEARING POTENTIAL ONLY IF THEY ARE CLEARLY SHOWN TO BE ESSENTIAL IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THEIR SEIZURES. … Given the studies’ inability to establish this correlation, the proposed sentence should not be incorporated into labeling.
Cited 7 timesUnpublishedUnited States v. Keelan Harris
636 F. App'x 922 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 2016
We review de novo the legal conclusion whether a person qualifies as a victim. United States v. Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012). … Harris’s conduct establishes that the denial of an adjustment was not clearly erroneous. IV.
Cited 6 timesUnpublishedSmith v. Bayer Corporation Long Term Disability Plan
275 F. App'x 495 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 2008
Given the fact that Smith had been previously hospitalized due to his mental condition and was, at that time, completely unable to function on his own, his subsequent claim that he was “doing better” clearly does not justify … In other words, Smith’s education, training, and experience did qualify him to do stockhandler’s work, even though they qualify him to do higher-skilled work as well.
Cited 28 timesUnpublishedAssociation Of Seat Lift Manufacturers v. Otis R. Bowen
858 F.2d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 1988
The promotion was directed to Medicare beneficiaries rather than to prescribing physicians and promoted seat lift chairs "at no cost, absolutely no cost" with a qualifying medical condition and supplemental insurance. … whereas Congress precluded review only of decisions on specific, individual retrospective claims. 27 A review of the record in its entirety, with particularity the Desmarais, the Gagel, and Stec memoranda and letters, 7 clearly
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States v. Derrick Herring
641 F. App'x 451 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 27, 2016
The prosecutor’s argument in this case clearly was improper. … A defendant qualifies for this enhancement if “he has exercised decisionmaking authority, recruited accomplices, received a larger share of the profits, was instrumental in the planning phase of the criminal venture, or
Cited 1 timesUnpublishedCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2009
Some removable immigrants may avoid deportation because they qualify for “withholding.” … Further, “[i]t is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings,” Reno v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedThomas More Law Center v. Barack Obama
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2011
It was to change individual behavior by requiring all qualified Americans to obtain medical insurance. … Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360, 367–70 (1998), the States’ implied immunity from federal taxation, see Massachusetts v.
Cited 0 timesPublished261 F. App'x 865 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 29, 2008
“We review a district court's denial of a federal prisoner’s § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence de novo, but will overturn its factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous. … In that case, we held that an admission of criminal activity that fails to provide complete information known to the defendant concerning the conspiracy will not qualify as withdrawal but, instead, “evidences a lack of
Cited 3 timesUnpublishedHarvey Creggett v. Jefferson County School District
491 F. App'x 561 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2012
The EEOC issued Creggett a right- to-sue letter on May 13, 2008, and dismissed the charge as failing to establish a violation. … Creggett has failed to establish that either failure to provide training was an adverse employment action.
Cited 43 timesUnpublished271 F. App'x 505 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 2008
For his testimony, Randy received immunity from prosecution for the conspiracy to sell methamphetamine. … Tyler’s explanations do not establish that it was clearly improbable that guns were possessed in connection with the offense.
Cited 2 timesUnpublished193 F. App'x 397 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2006
Nevertheless, the district court dismissed the complaint after determining that the article’s quotations from “The Angel Mimi” qualified for the fair use defense as a matter of law. … A party seeking retransfer must establish under the law-of-the-case doctrine that the transfer order was clearly erroneous and would work a “manifest injustice.” See id. at 1137.
Cited 15 timesUnpublished168 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 1999
Such conduct by Respondent [ProGalv] was clearly violative of the Act. 78 J.A. at 10. … "The Board's determination [to order bargaining] is not immune from review ... [and] we must look at the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the bargaining order." Indiana Cal-Pro, Inc. v.
Cited 33 timesPublished495 F. App'x 553 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 1, 2012
A variance can be established based on the evidence submitted at trial. Id. at 522. … This approximation of drug quantity “is not clearly erroneous if it is supported by competent evidence in the record.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished169 F. App'x 435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 9, 2006
In order to decide whether the state court violated clearly established federal law in deciding that Petitioner was not in custody for Miranda purposes, it is important to consider the relevant clearly established federal … The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the state court had unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in ruling that Alvarado was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Id.
Cited 3 timesUnpublishedMary R. Taylor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
849 F.2d 1474 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 23, 1988
We believe the record clearly establishes that the district court's award was well within the range of "reasonable," and therefore, it will stand. 18 Likewise, we reject plaintiff's assertion that fees should have been awarded … Therefore, the district court's determination that the rate of $75 per hour is reasonable is not clearly erroneous.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished238 F.3d 755 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 24, 2001
Congress defined an IEP as follows: 24 [A] written statement for each child with a disability developed in any meeting by a representative of the local educational agency or an intermediate educational unit who shall be qualified … Inasmuch as Bexley failed to comply even with the longer time limit provided by the Ohio regulations, we need not address this issue. 4 The IHO found that Justin's final grades for the sixth grade "clearly establish that
Cited 0 timesPublished112 F.4th 386 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2024
Fielder, 475 F.3d 180, 188 (4th Cir. 2007) (fact that regulations had not been promulgated did not render claim unripe because “[r]egulations could not alter the [a]ct’s provisions, which clearly establish the healthcare … Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 313 (1997) (state-mandated drug testing necessary to be qualified to be political candidate was a search); City of Los Angeles v.
Cited 29 timesPublishedStupak-Thrall v. United States
89 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 1996
Although plaintiffs now argue on rehearing, for the first time, that sailboats have been used on the lake, occasional and recreational use of the type suggested by plaintiffs is clearly not enough to establish a taking. 6 … It is clearly possible for the Forest Service to permit the use of sailboats or houseboats only by riparian owners.
Cited 0 timesPublishedNancy Seaman v. Heidi Washington
506 F. App'x 349 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 2012
A state court’s decision is “contrary to . . . clearly established federal law” if “the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides … Clearly established federal law is determined by the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of the Supreme Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state court decision. Id.
Cited 5 timesUnpublishedLandmark American Ins. Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
116 F. App'x 583 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 2004
First, it argues that the conflict between the exclusion for auto accidents under (g) and the exception to the exclusion for “insured contracts” found in (b)(1) creates an ambiguity that requires us to find under established … When the policy is read as a whole, the plain language clearly excludes coverage for an auto accident, even when an insured contract is involved.
Cited 1 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna