Case law

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation, Inc. v. Gentile Productions Charles M. Gentile

134 F.3d 749 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 5, 1998

McCarthy § 3:3. 20 It is well established that "[t]here is no such thing as property in a trademark except as a right appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with which the mark is employed." … I believe the Museum has a valid trademark in its building, and that a photographic image of the museum building could qualify as a trademark on merchandise.

American Academy Of Ophthalmology, Inc. v. Sullivan

998 F.2d 377 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 1993

Antos, Ph.D. at 1-3. 73 Because Director Antos' declaration clearly reveals that the agreements do not contain the contested features of the Cataract Demonstration, we need not address the appellants' claim under 42 U.S.C … Freedom of Choice 74 The appellants claim that the demonstration project will impair a Medicare beneficiary's right to select a qualified health care provider as guaranteed under the Medicare Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1395a. 1 The

United States v. Roy Nichols

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2020

In this case, that is a difficult determination to make, as the district court did not clearly explain its rationale for applying the enhancement. … . § 2422 establishes that actually persuading or attempting to persuade a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity is a violation of federal law.

Lundblad v. Celeste

772 F.2d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 1985

contend that even if the district court erred, it committed a harmless error because Lundblad failed to state a claim and because, under the claim he attempted to raise, the defendant state officers were protected by the qualified … immunity articulated in Harlow v.

Marable McFall v. John Tooke

308 F.2d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 5, 1962

On a motion for a directed verdict based on contributory negligence, “the burden is upon the defendant to establish * * * that plaintiff was guilty of some specific act, or omission to act, which did not meet the standards … The absoluteness of such statutory provision has been qualified by the Kentucky court. Referring to this statute, the court said in Baldwin v.

In Re Bendectin Litigation.

857 F.2d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 1988

Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 279 , 97 S.Ct. 568, 572 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) ("jurisdiction is sufficiently established by allegation of a claim under the Constitution or federal statutes, unless it 'clearly appears to be immaterial … In short, Helminski was a case of first impression in this circuit, and the result was not clearly foreshadowed. Thus, we conclude that the burden of establishing the non-retroactivity of Helminski was met.

Modou Hydra v. Eric Holder, Jr.

531 F. App'x 587 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2013

Holder To gain asylum, an applicant must first qualify as a refugee. … Thus BIA did not clearly err in considering this omission substantially related to Hydra’s claim.

H.D. Fitzpatrick, Jr. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

765 F.2d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 1985

The definition of the lending limit in section 215.2(f) read, at the time of the these transactions: 22 (f) The "lending limit" for a member bank is an amount equal to the limit on loans to a single borrower established by … Clearly Fitzpatrick, an experienced banker, should have known that an unperfected security interest was inadequate security.

United States v. Samuel Atkins

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 4, 2025

To qualify, the “weapon need not be possessed during the commission of the actual offense of conviction.” United States v. West, 962 F.3d 183, 187 (6th Cir. 2020). … He did not offer any evidence to show that it was clearly improbable that the guns were not connected with the offense.

City of Pontiac Retired Employees v. Louis Schimmel

498 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2013

This is clearly a judicial question.”).10 Likewise, courts should review the Legislature’s compliance with the Michigan Constitution’s two-thirds vote requirement to give a bill immediate effect. … To the contrary, in his brief to the Michigan 12 On remand, the district court should also consider whether the Michigan Legislature possesses the power to retroactively immunize its own acts that

United States v. David Anderson

608 F. App'x 369 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2015

In the present case, the government relied primarily upon subsection (1)(a) of MCL § 750.349b to establish unlawful restraint, but also argued that Anderson’s actions could qualify under subsection (1)(c). … Defendant’s conduct clearly went beyond the minimum required to commit the offense.”).

Jamie Mangum v. Gary Repp

674 F. App'x 531 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 5, 2017

Defendants asserted the defense of qualified immunity in their answer, but did not seek summary judgment on that basis. The district court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed plaintiffs case. … To establish deliberate indifference, Mangum must satisfy an objective and subjective component. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 .

John G. Waskovich v. Lucas MacHine Corporation

875 F.2d 869 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 1989

The court concluded, first, that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that he was "qualified" for the position at issue, and therefore failed to establish an essential element of a prima facie case of age discrimination. … This inquiry implicates the discussion set forth above with respect to the "qualified" element of the prima facie case. 19 A plaintiff in an age discrimination case may establish pretext in one of two ways: 20 The first is

George Mefford v. John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare

383 F.2d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 17, 1967

“The record indicates that plaintiff does suffer heart ailment that would prevent him from carrying on coal mining work which is the only work that he appears qualified to do, having ■ done it, as previously indicated, since … There must be something more tangible establishing what employment opportunities there are for a man with his impairment.

United States v. Odoms

341 F. App'x 142 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2009

The PSR identified four qualifying predicate convictions, two of which were for aggravated burglaries for which Odoms was sentenced on the -2- No. 07-5980 United States v … As such, Odoms has not established plain error.

Leroy Pletten v. Merit Systems Protection Board

908 F.2d 973 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 13, 1990

Plaintiff's sole claim throughout is that he is a "qualified handicapped individual" by statute. … Since this suit clearly was one of a "mixed case", appellant's contention that this case should have been transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is without merit. See also, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703 (b)(2).

United States v. Stephen Clay Perry and Steve's Discount Drugs

940 F.2d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 2, 1991

Her experience clearly qualified her to testify concerning the "modus operandi" of illegal pharmaceutical drug trafficking. Cf. United States v. … We believe that this testimony was sufficient to establish the mailing requirement under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 . See United States v.

Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen

789 F.3d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2015

The second provision stated: “‘If vacancies cannot be filled after all reasonable attempts, including utilizing all extra boards, furloughed boards, or other assignments, then qualified carrier officers may provide service … This marked categorization of disputes is established in the RLA.

Haines v. Saginaw Police Dept.

35 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 17, 1994

35 F.3d 565 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 of copies of cited unpublished … Those defendants filed a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, failure to state a claim, and qualified immunity.

Bryan Pesta v. Cleveland State Univ.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2025

Clearly, the facts are that Dr. … immunity.