Case law

United State of America v. Southeast Eye Specialists, PLLC

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 5, 2021

Those facts are accepted as true for purposes of both the Motions to Dismiss, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) and the Motion to Strike, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. … Those with high referral rates may even be selected to sit on SEES’ advisory board.

Diamond Consortium, Inc. v. Hammervold

386 F. Supp. 3d 904 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · May 23, 2019

Cooter & Gell v. … Brown v. City of Upper Arlington , 637 F.3d 668 , 672-73 (6th Cir. 2011).

Jefferson v. Dutton

607 F. Supp. 355 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Mar 30, 1985

Hinds County School Board, 417 F.2d 852, 858 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1032 , 90 S.Ct. 612 , 24 L.Ed.2d 531 (1970). … See Hobby v.

Fuson

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Feb 10, 2026

Sherrod v. Dorothy Brown, No. 21-cv-0608 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2021) (listing filings and recommending sanctions); see also in re William T. Sherrod, Jr., No. 1:21-cv-01301 (N.D. Ill. … Sherrod v. Chandler, No. 10-CV-1973, 2011 WL 155785, at *4 (N.D. Ill.

Webb

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 10, 2025

Webb et al., 2:23-cv-00009 (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Webb v. Board of Judicial Conduct et al., 2:23-cv-00010 (dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim); Webb v. … Board of Judicial Conduct TN et al., 3:24-cv-01307, (transferred from N.D. Alabama and pending); Webb v. Hill et al., 3:25- cv-00019 (dismissed for failure to state claims); Webb v.

Greer v. The Tennessee Department of Correction

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 18, 2022

Brown v. Cracker Barrel Rest., 22 F. App’x 577, 578 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989)). III. … Blackmore, 390 F.3d at 895 (quoting Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000)). Courts determine this subjective component “‘in light of the prison authorities’ current attitudes and conduct.’” Id.

Harrison v. City of Clarksville, Tenn.

732 F. Supp. 810 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 23, 1990

It is also clear that the practice was widely known and discussed among the firefighters who were on board at the time the designated plaintiffs were hired. … In Beebe v.

Gentry v. Tennessee Department of Treasury

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Oct 24, 2024

in NCBF v. … The Board of Claims denied the request on June 23, 2023, finding that the Clerk was not a state employee for purposes of the claims process. (Id.)

Montgomery v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO (IBEW) Local 429

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jul 1, 2024

See Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011)(cleaned up). Nevertheless, courts are not required to conjure up unpleaded allegations or guess at the nature of an argument. Brown v. … Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). 1.

Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Dollar General Corporation

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 4, 2024

No. 30); and (3) the New York City Police Pension Fund, the New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, and the Board of Education Retirement System of the City of New York (“NYC Funds”) (Doc. No. 35.) … Outten v. Wilmington Tr. Corp., 281 F.R.D. 193, 197 n.9 (D. Del. 2012) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 10.221 (2005)).

Molodetskiy v. Nortel Networks Short-Term & Long-Term Disability Plan

594 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 20, 2009

See Smith v. … See Platt v.

McClellon v. Bennett

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 15, 2020

Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Young Bok Song v. Gipson, 423 F. … Brown v. CCA/Metro Davidson Det. Facility, No. 3:13-cv-00423, 2013 WL 3071052, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. June 18, 2013) (citing Whittington v.

Lester v. Mayorkas

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · May 13, 2024

Brown v. General Services Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 835 (1976). … Brown v. Cracker Barrel Rest., 22 F. App'x 577, 578 (6th Cir. 2001). To decipher Plaintiff’s retaliation claims would require speculation as to their basis.

Perry

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Mar 9, 2026

Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003). … Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). Two of these rules merit discussion here.

Aldridge v. Mullins

377 F. Supp. 850 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 27, 1972

As stated by the Honorable Bailey Brown, “A person making an arrest is acting under color of law if, and perhaps only if, he is in fact acting as a public officer.” Bryant v. … Ellenburg v.

Crippen v. Jok

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Aug 12, 2020

See Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985) (disciplinary board members protected by qualified immunity); Superintendent v. … Real, 471 U.S. 491, 495–99 (1985) (disciplinary board need not make contemporaneous record of reasons live witnesses for inmate not allowed); Baxter v.

Jones v. The State Administrative High Rank Officers and Staff

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Aug 31, 2020

Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Young Bok Song v. Gipson, 423 F. … Id. at 454 (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347); see also Brown v.

Maney

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Oct 29, 2025

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). … Payne v. Secretary of Treasury, 73 F. App’x 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003). And pro se litigants are not exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F.

Lyons

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 24, 2026

Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Although pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, Erickson v. … Defendant was neither board- certified in forensic psychology nor a member of the American Psychological Association, and his Tennessee psychology license was under board investigation. (Id. at 13).

Oman Construction Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority

486 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Dec 13, 1979

Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States, supra. … In exercising the discretion thus expressly vested in it, the TVA Board of Directors has determined that its procurement “shall not be subject to the Federal Procurement Regulations.”