<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>U.S. Sixth Circuit</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/atom.xml" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009-03-31:/sixth_circuit/21</id>
    <updated>2009-11-06T22:05:53Z</updated>
    <subtitle>The FindLaw 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog.</subtitle>
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Enterprise 4.24-en</generator>

<entry>
    <title>Friends of Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Auth., No. 08-5706</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/11/friends-of-tims-ford-v-tennessee-valley-auth-no-08-5706.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5546</id>

    <published>2009-11-06T22:05:53Z</published>
    <updated>2009-11-06T22:05:53Z</updated>

    <summary>In plaintiff&apos;s suit against the defendant for violations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in land development near a reservoir and the environmental impact of increased boating on, and community use of, reservoir water, dismissal of the...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
    <category term="circuitjudgekeith" label="Circuit Judge Keith" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="civilprocedure" label="Civil Procedure" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="environmentallaw" label="Environmental Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>In plaintiff's suit against the defendant for violations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in land development near a reservoir and the environmental impact of increased boating on, and community use of, reservoir water, dismissal of the case without prejudice is affirmed as plaintiff failed to demonstrate standing to bring its claim alleging ongoing harm to its members' aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of the reservoir.&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Friends of Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Auth., No. 08-5706 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/085706p.pdf">Read Friends of Tims Ford v. Tennessee Valley Auth., No. 08-5706</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: June 17, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: November 6, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2375181_1?channel=CCC">Keith</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/4028782_1?channel=CCC">Gregory D, Buppert, Dodson Parker Behem &amp; Capparella, PC</a>., Nashville, Tennessee.</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1599652_1?channel=CCC">Elizabeth P. McCarter</a>, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee.&nbsp; </p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Ferro Corp. v. Cookson Group, PLC, No. 08-3624</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/11/ferro-corp-v-cookson-group-plc-no-08-3624.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5545</id>

    <published>2009-11-06T21:58:44Z</published>
    <updated>2009-11-06T21:58:44Z</updated>

    <summary>In plaintiff&apos;s suit against defendant for breach of its duty to defend and indemnify arising from antitrust lawsuits brought against plaintiff, summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of all of plaintiff&apos;s claims is affirmed as there are no allegations made...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Contract Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="antitrust" label="Antitrust" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="circuitjudgemarbley" label="Circuit Judge Marbley" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="contractlaw" label="Contract Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="corporationandenterprise" label="Corporation and Enterprise" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>In plaintiff's suit against defendant for breach of its duty to defend and indemnify arising from antitrust lawsuits brought against plaintiff, summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims is affirmed as there are no allegations made against plaintiff in the antitrust complaints or amended complaints based on principles of successor liability, and the antitrust cases do not state claims that potentially or arguably fall within the purview of the asset purchase agreement duty to defend.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Ferro Corp. v. Cookson Group, PLC, No. 08-3624 full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/083624p.pdf">Read Ferro Corp. v. Cookson Group, PLC, No. 08-3624</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: June 19, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: November 6, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge Marbley</p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3428377_1?channel=CCC">James B. Niehaus, Frantz Ward, LLP</a>., Cleveland, Ohio</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1160136_1?channel=CCC">Roxann E. Henry, Howrey LLP</a>., Washington, DC</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Webb v. Mitchell, No. 06-4606</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/11/webb-v-mitchell-no-06-4606.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5515</id>

    <published>2009-11-05T20:04:15Z</published>
    <updated>2009-11-05T20:04:15Z</updated>

    <summary>In a capital habeas case involving a petitioner convicted of aggravated murder of his son and sentenced to death, denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) defendant&apos;s Brady claim is rejected as there is no reasonable probability that, had...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Criminal Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="circuitjudgesutton" label="Circuit Judge Sutton" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="constitutionallaw" label="CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="criminallawandprocedure" label="Criminal Law and Procedure" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="evidence" label="Evidence" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="habeascorpus" label="Habeas Corpus" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="sentencing" label="Sentencing" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>In a capital habeas case involving a petitioner convicted of aggravated murder of his son and sentenced to death, denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) defendant's Brady claim is rejected as there is no reasonable probability that, had a certain police report been disclosed, the outcome would have been different; 2) defendant's ex post facto and due process violation claims are rejected; 3) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase claim is rejected; 4) defendant's Fifth Amendment violation claim based on prosecution's comment on his failure to testify is rejected; and 5) district court did not err in concluding that defendant procedurally defaulted two of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Webb v. Mitchell, No. 06-4606 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/064606p.pdf">Read Webb v. Mitchell, No. 06-4606</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: June 10, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: November 5, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge Sutton</p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2893601_1?channel=CCC">Keith A. Yeazel</a>, Law Office, Columbus, Ohio</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; Charles L. Wille, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Memphis Biofuels, LLC. v. Chicksaw Nation Indus., Inc., No. 08-6145 </title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/11/memphis-biofuels-llc-v-chicksaw-nation-indus-inc-no-08-6145.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5484</id>

    <published>2009-11-04T22:32:50Z</published>
    <updated>2009-11-04T22:32:50Z</updated>

    <summary>In plaintiff&apos;s case against the defendants for repudiating an agreement whereby defendant was to deliver diesel fuel and soybean oil to plaintiff&apos;s refinery facility, dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed as the defendant, a...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Contract Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="circuitjudgecole" label="Circuit Judge Cole" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="civilprocedure" label="Civil Procedure" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="contractlaw" label="Contract Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="indianlaw" label="INDIAN LAW" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>In plaintiff's case against the defendants for repudiating an agreement whereby defendant was to deliver diesel fuel and soybean oil to plaintiff's refinery facility, dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed as the defendant, a federally chartered tribal corporation, enjoys tribal-sovereign immunity.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Memphis Biofuels, LLC. v. Chicksaw Nation Indus., Inc., No. 08-6145  - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/086145p.pdf">Read Memphis Biofuels, LLC. v. Chicksaw Nation Indus., Inc., No. 08-6145 </a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: October 6, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: November 4, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1244590_1?channel=CCC">Cole</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1854915_1?channel=CCC">John R. Branson, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &amp; Berkowitz, PC., </a>Memphis, Tennessee.</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1861935_1?channel=CCC">Donna Brown Jacobs, Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens &amp; Cannada, PLLC., </a>Jackson, Mississippi.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Chappell v. City of Cleveland, No. 08-4456</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/11/chappell-v-city-of-cleveland-no-08-4456.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5483</id>

    <published>2009-11-04T22:23:40Z</published>
    <updated>2009-11-04T22:23:40Z</updated>

    <summary>In plaintiff-administratrix&apos;s case against the officers for the deadly shooting of a fifteen year-old in his bedroom while executing a search warrant of his home, district court&apos;s denial of officers&apos; motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Civil Rights Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Injury &amp; Tort Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="circuitjudgemckeague" label="Circuit Judge McKeague" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="civilprocedure" label="Civil Procedure" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="civilrightslaw" label="Civil Rights Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="constitutionallaw" label="CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>In plaintiff-administratrix's case against the officers for the deadly shooting of a fifteen year-old in his bedroom while executing a search warrant of his home, district court's denial of officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed and remanded as the record supports the conclusion that the material facts are not genuinely disputed and, as a matter of law, officers' split-second decision to use deadly force in self-defense was not shown to have been objectively unreasonable.&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Chappell v. City of Cleveland, No. 08-4456 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/084456p.pdf">Read Chappell v. City of Cleveland, No. 08-4456</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: October 6, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: November 4, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2060731_1?channel=CCC">McKeague</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1834293_1?channel=CCC">Stephen W. Funk, Roetzel &amp; Andress</a>, Akron, Ohio</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1013144_1?channel=CCC">Terry H. Gilbert, Friedman &amp; Gilbert</a>, Cleveland, Ohio</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 07-5596 </title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/11/bridgeport-music-inc-v-umg-recordings-inc-no-07-5596.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5482</id>

    <published>2009-11-04T22:16:47Z</published>
    <updated>2009-11-05T00:22:17Z</updated>

    <summary>In plaintiff&apos;s copyright-infringement case against defendant for infringement of its copyright on George Clinton&apos;s song, based on the use of the phrase &quot;Bow wow wow, yippie yo, yippie yea&quot;, district court&apos;s finding that defendant willfully infringed plaintiff&apos;s rights in the...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Intellectual Property Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="circuitjudgedaughtrey" label="Circuit Judge Daughtrey" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="civilprocedure" label="Civil Procedure" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="copyrightinfringement" label="Copyright Infringement" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="intellectualpropertylaw" label="Intellectual Property Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>In plaintiff's copyright-infringement case against defendant for infringement of its copyright on George Clinton's song, based on the use of the phrase "Bow wow wow, yippie yo, yippie yea", district court's finding that defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's rights in the song and an award of statutory damages of $88,980 are affirmed where: 1) the jury instructions were not erroneous as a matter of law; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give the instructions requested by the defendant.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 07-5596  - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/075596p.pdf">Read Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 07-5596 </a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: April 23, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: November 4, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1556761_1?channel=CCC">Daughtrey</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp; Jeffrey D. Goldman, <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2454305_1?channel=CCC">Mitchell, Silberberg &amp; Knupp, LLP</a>, Los Angeles, California.</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2614709_1?channel=CCC">Richard S. Busch, King &amp; Ballow</a>, Nashville, Tennessee.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Johnson v. Mitchell, No. 00-3350</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/11/johnson-v-mitchell-no-00-3350.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5479</id>

    <published>2009-11-04T22:10:40Z</published>
    <updated>2009-11-04T22:10:40Z</updated>

    <summary>District court&apos;s conviction of defendant for aggravated robbery and aggravated murder and sentence of death is affirmed in part as to the conviction, but reversed in part as to the sentence where petitioner&apos;s trial attorney did not provide his client...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Criminal Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="circuitjudgedaughtrey" label="Circuit Judge Daughtrey" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="constitutionallaw" label="CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="criminallawandprocedure" label="CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="sentencing" label="Sentencing" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>District court's conviction of defendant for aggravated robbery and aggravated murder and sentence of death is affirmed in part as to the conviction, but reversed in part as to the sentence where petitioner's trial attorney did not provide his client with effective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of a second trial, specifically, by failing to meaningfully investigate and to present any mitigation evidence.&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Johnson v. Mitchell, No. 00-3350 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/003350p.pdf">Read Johnson v. Mitchell, No. 00-3350</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: December 6, 2007</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: November 4, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1556761_1?channel=CCC">Daughtrey</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2755998_1?channel=CCC">Timothy F. Sweeney, Law Office of Timothy Farrell Sweeney</a>, Cleveland, Ohio</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1816976_1?channel=CCC">Charles L. Wille</a>, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>US v. Rosenbaum, No. 08-1339</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/11/us-v-rosenbaum-no-08-1339.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5429</id>

    <published>2009-11-03T11:41:12Z</published>
    <updated>2009-11-03T16:39:30Z</updated>

    <summary>District court&apos;s imposition of a statutory maximum of 120 months&apos; imprisonment on a defendant convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and to harbor illegal aliens, and of harboring more than one hundred illegal aliens, is affirmed where: 1) there...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Criminal Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="circuitjudgemartin" label="Circuit Judge Martin" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="criminallawandprocedure" label="CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="sentencing" label="Sentencing" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>District court's imposition of a statutory maximum of 120 months' imprisonment on a defendant convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and to harbor illegal aliens, and of harboring more than one hundred illegal aliens, is affirmed where: 1) there was no error in district court's denial of government's 5K1.1 motion to reduce defendant's sentence, as the court found it significant that defendant had not begun cooperating until after one of his co-defendants had agreed to cooperate and found that bulk of his cooperation to be incomplete at the time of sentencing; and 2) defendant's sentence is presumed reasonable as it was within the advisory Guidelines range.&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="US v. Rosenbaum, No. 08-1339 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/081339p.pdf">Read US v. Rosenbaum, No. 08-1339</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: October 8, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: November 3, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge<a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1942435_1?channel=CCC"> Martin</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2795705_1?channel=CCC">Kenneth P. Tableman, Kenneth P. Tableman, PC</a>., Grand Rapids, Michigan</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; Hagen W. Frank, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Grand Rapids, Michigan</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Sec&apos;y of U.S. Air Force v. Commemorative Air Force, No. 08-4084</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/11/secy-of-us-air-force-v-commemorative-air-force-no-08-4084.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5396</id>

    <published>2009-11-02T11:18:54Z</published>
    <updated>2009-11-02T11:31:04Z</updated>

    <summary>In United States Air Force&apos;s (USAF) suit against Commemorative Air Force (CAF) for breach of contract, replevin, and a declaratory judgment that it violated the terms of a 1996 donation certificate concerning an F-82 aircraft, district court&apos;s order granting summary...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Contract Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="aerospacedefense" label="Aerospace &amp; Defense" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="circuitjudgerogers" label="Circuit Judge ROGERS" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="governmentcontract" label="Government Contract" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>In United States Air Force's (USAF) suit against Commemorative Air Force (CAF) for breach of contract, replevin, and a declaratory judgment that it violated the terms of a 1996 donation certificate concerning an F-82 aircraft, district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and denying CAF's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, as there is no genuine issue of material fact that CAF's attempt to trade the F-82 violated the terms of the 1996 donation certificate, which called for title to revest in the USAF if CAF no longer desired to return the aircraft.&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Sec'y of U.S. Air Force v. Commemorative Air Force, No. 08-4084 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/084084p.pdf">Read Sec'y of U.S. Air Force v. Commemorative Air Force, No. 08-4084</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: October 14, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: November 2, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3332688_1?channel=CCC">Rogers</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp;<a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1866642_1?channel=CCC"> Garry L. Montanari, Michealis, Montanari &amp; Johnson, PC</a>., Westlake Village, California.</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1154252_1?channel=CCC">Patrick D. Quinn</a>, Assistant United States Attorney, Dayton, Ohio. </p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Carter v. Anderson, No. 08-3372</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/10/carter-v-anderson-no-08-3372.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5375</id>

    <published>2009-10-30T12:16:36Z</published>
    <updated>2009-10-30T12:44:07Z</updated>

    <summary>District court&apos;s order denying death-row inmate&apos;s claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is affirmed as a movant that seeks relief under Rule 60(b) must show extraordinary circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment and, in...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Criminal Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="circuitjudgesuhrheinrich" label="Circuit Judge Suhrheinrich" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="civilprocedure" label="Civil Procedure" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="criminallawandprocedure" label="CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>District court's order denying death-row inmate's claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is affirmed as a movant that seeks relief under Rule 60(b) must show extraordinary circumstances justifying the reopening of a final judgment and, in this case, the motion fails because the defendant cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that the warden committed fraud on the court.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Carter v. Anderson, No. 08-3372 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/083372p.pdf">Read Carter v. Anderson, No. 08-3372</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: August 5, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: October 30, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2373327_1?channel=CCC">Suhrheinrich</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2570245_1?channel=CCC">Joseph E. Wilhelm</a>, Federal Public Defender's Office, Cleveland, Ohio</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3557005_1?channel=CCC">Thomas E. Madden</a>, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Cox v. Standard Ins. Co., No. 08-2033</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/10/cox-v-standard-ins-co-no-08-2033.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5322</id>

    <published>2009-10-29T18:38:53Z</published>
    <updated>2009-10-29T18:38:53Z</updated>

    <summary>In plaintiff&apos;s ERISA case, district court&apos;s judgment on the administrative record approving defendant&apos;s discontinuance of plaintiff&apos;s long-term disability benefits is affirmed as, taking the record as a whole and applying the highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard, defendant&apos;s decision appears...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Employment Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="circuitjudgemartin" label="Circuit Judge Martin" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="erisa" label="ERISA" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="insurancelaw" label="Insurance Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="laboremploymentlaw" label="Labor &amp; Employment Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>In plaintiff's ERISA case, district court's judgment on the administrative record approving defendant's discontinuance of plaintiff's long-term disability benefits is affirmed as, taking the record as a whole and applying the highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard, defendant's decision appears to have been based on a principled and deliberative reasoning process.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Cox v. Standard Ins. Co., No. 08-2033 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/082033p.pdf">Read Cox v. Standard Ins. Co., No. 08-2033</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: October 8, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: October 29, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1942435_1?channel=CCC">Martin</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2028721_1?channel=CCC">Troy W. Haney</a>, Haney Law Office, PC, Grand Rapids, Michigan</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3916906_1?channel=CCC">Warren Sebastian von Schleicher, Smith, von Schleicher &amp; Associates</a>, Chicago, Illinois</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Ghazali v. Holder, No. 08-4229</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/10/ghazali-v-holder-no-08-4229.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5321</id>

    <published>2009-10-29T18:32:20Z</published>
    <updated>2009-10-29T18:32:20Z</updated>

    <summary><![CDATA[BIA's denial of Lebanese petitioner's application for asylum is affirmed as an immigration judge's determination that an asylum application is time barred does not preclude the judge from also finding that the same application is frivolous.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Read Ghazali v. Holder,...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Immigration Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="administrativelaw" label="ADMINISTRATIVE LAW" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="circuitjudgesutton" label="Circuit Judge Sutton" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="immigrationlaw" label="IMMIGRATION LAW" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>BIA's denial of Lebanese petitioner's application for asylum is affirmed as an immigration judge's determination that an asylum application is time barred does not preclude the judge from also finding that the same application is frivolous.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Ghazali v. Holder, No. 08-4229 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/084229p.pdf">Read Ghazali v. Holder, No. 08-4229</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: October 7, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: October 29, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2293478_1?channel=CCC">Sutton</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp;<a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1932748_1?channel=CCC"> Ronald E. Kaplovitz, Kaplovitz &amp; Associates</a>, Sylvan Lake, Michigan</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; Patrick James Glen, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC. </p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc., No. 08-4125</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/10/pettrey-v-enter-title-agency-inc-no-08-4125.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5188</id>

    <published>2009-10-27T18:40:55Z</published>
    <updated>2009-10-27T18:40:55Z</updated>

    <summary>In plaintiffs&apos; case against defendants alleging fraudulent scheme of charging customers for services not performed and using that money to give kickbacks to real estate agents, district court&apos;s order denying class certification is affirmed and the appeal dismissed as the...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Injury &amp; Tort Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="circuitjudgethapar" label="Circuit Judge Thapar" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="civilprocedure" label="Civil Procedure" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="classactions" label="Class Actions" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>In plaintiffs' case against defendants alleging fraudulent scheme of charging customers for services not performed and using that money to give kickbacks to real estate agents, district court's order denying class certification is affirmed and the appeal dismissed as the case is moot because plaintiffs have settled and released all of their claims against defendants.&nbsp; Present case is distinguishable from previous cases where the Supreme Court has allowed named plaintiffs to appeal denials of class certification even after the named plaintiffs' individual claims had become moot where plaintiffs retained a personal stake in the case because they would be able to shift part of the costs of litigation to the class members if they prevailed in their attempt at class certification.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc., No. 08-4125 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/084125p.pdf">Read Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc., No. 08-4125</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: August 5, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: October 27, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge Thapar</p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp;<a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3085351_1?channel=CCC"> David G. Oakley, Kramer &amp; Associates, LPA</a>, Cleveland, Ohio</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp;<a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3373480_1?channel=CCC"> Ellyn Tamulewicz Mehendale, Janik LLP</a>, Cleveland, Ohio</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>US v. Washington, No. 09-5110</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/10/us-v-washington-no-09-5110.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5187</id>

    <published>2009-10-27T18:35:00Z</published>
    <updated>2009-10-27T18:35:00Z</updated>

    <summary>District court&apos;s denial of defendant&apos;s motion to reduce and modify his otherwise valid sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 3582(c)(2) is affirmed as the district court does not have authority under US v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to reduce a...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Criminal Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="circuitjudgegriffin" label="Circuit Judge Griffin" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="criminallawandprocedure" label="Criminal Law and Procedure" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="sentencing" label="Sentencing" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>District court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce and modify his otherwise valid sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 3582(c)(2) is affirmed as the district court does not have authority under US v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to reduce a sentence beyond the retroactive United States Sentencing Guidelines amendment range.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="US v. Washington, No. 09-5110 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/095110p.pdf">Read US v. Washington, No. 09-5110</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: Agust 4, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: October 27, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1223330_1?channel=CCC">Griffin</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp; <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2866322_1?channel=CCC">John G. Oliva</a>, Nashville, Tennessee</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp; Matthew J. Everett, Assistant United States Attorney, Nashville, Tennessee</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, No. 08-4557</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2009/10/delay-v-rosenthal-collins-group-llc-no-08-4557.html" />
    <id>tag:blogs.findlaw.com,2009:/sixth_circuit//21.5186</id>

    <published>2009-10-27T18:31:01Z</published>
    <updated>2009-10-27T18:31:01Z</updated>

    <summary>In plaintiff&apos;s action against his former employer, seeking indemnification for legal expenses incurred in successfully defending a prior suit brought against him under the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), dismissal of his claim on the ground that it was preempted by...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Sooah Sohr</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Employment Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="circuitjudgekethledge" label="Circuit Judge Kethledge" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="laboremploymentlaw" label="Labor &amp; Employment Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="securitieslaw" label="Securities Law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/">
        <![CDATA[<p>In plaintiff's action against his former employer, seeking indemnification for legal expenses incurred in successfully defending a prior suit brought against him under the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), dismissal of his claim on the ground that it was preempted by federal law is vacated and remanded as Congress did not intend to displace the state-law indemnification rights, if any, of parties found not to have violated the CEA.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p><a title="Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, No. 08-4557 - full decision" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/084557p.pdf">Read Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, No. 08-4557</a></p>
<p><u>Appellate Information</u> </p>
<p>Argued: October 8, 2009</p>
<p>Decided and Filed: October 27, 2009</p>
<p><u>Judges</u></p>
<p>Opinion by Circuit Judge <a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2029905_1?channel=CCC">Kethledge</a></p>
<p><u>Counsel</u></p>
<p>For Appellant:&nbsp;<a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3260320_1?channel=CCC">James G. Vargo</a>, James E. Arnold &amp; Associates, LPA, Columbus, Ohio</p>
<p>For Appellee:&nbsp;<a href="http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2330538_1?channel=CCC"> Jeffrey A. Schulman, Wolin Kelter &amp; Rosen, LTD</a>, Chicago, Illinois</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

</feed>
