ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Sixth Circuit Cases

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Federal Judiciary

: Sixth Circuit Cases

Sep. 29 - Oct. 3, 2008: US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Decisions

By Michael Stevens

ADVERTISEMENTS

    PUBLISHED OPINIONS

OpinionShort Title/District
08a0353p.06

2008/09/29

Davis v. MI Bell Tele Co
    Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Candice Davis appeals the district court?s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, in this FMLA action. The defendant terminated Davis from her job as a customer service representative in February of 2005 because of excessive unexcused absences. Davis had sought FMLA leave with respect to those absences, but her request was denied on the ground that she had not worked enough hours in the preceding twelve months to be eligible for FMLA benefits. After being fired, Davis brought this action against the defendant, alleging that the defendant had interfered with her rights under the FMLA, retaliated against her for exercising those rights, and failed to give proper notice of ineligibility as required by the FMLA. Finding that Davis was ineligible for FMLA benefits in 2005, and that Davis could not maintain a cause of action based on improper notice of ineligibility, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

On appeal, Davis argues that the district court erred in finding her ineligible for FMLA benefits because her eligibility from 2004 should have carried over into 2005. In the alternative, she argues that the defendant should be estopped from challenging her FMLA eligibility, and that she is entitled to recover because of the defendant?s failure to provide proper notice of ineligibility. Because these arguments are unavailing, * the district court judgment is affirmed.

08a0354p.06

2008/09/29

Marjorie Nixon v. Wilmington Trust Company
    Northern District of Ohio at Toledo

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Marjorie Nixon appeals the district court?s dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of her claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and respondeat superior liability against Wilmington Trust. We AFFIRM.

08a0355p.06

2008/09/30

Ohio Republican Party v. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner
    Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Jennifer Brunner, Secretary of State of Ohio (?the Secretary?), brings this emergency motion to stay or vacate the district court?s grant of a Temporary Restraining Order (?TRO?) restraining enforcement of Advisory 2008-24, which advised county boards of elections that they are not required to allow election observers during the 35-day in-person absentee voting period immediately preceding Election Day. The Secretary argues before this court that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief against state officials on the basis of state law, and (2) the district court abused its discretion in granting the TRO. Plaintiffs-Appellees, the Ohio Republican Party and Larry Wolpert, bring an emergency motion seeking an injunction restraining the Secretary from allowing simultaneous registration and absentee voting to the extent that ballots cast by newly registered voters are not physically segregated from other ballots. For the reasons stated below, we GRANT the Secretary?s emergency motion to stay the district court?s TRO and DENY the plaintiffs? emergency motion for an injunction.

08a0356p.06

2008/10/03

Mason v. Mitchell
    Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0357p.06

2008/10/03

Parker v. Bagley
    Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0358p.06

2008/10/03

USA v. Parker
    Southern District of Ohio at Dayton

    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS
      

OpinionShort Title/District
08a0580n.06 Roger Estill v. Georgianna Cool
    Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0581n.06 USA v. Manzo-Reyes
    Northern District of Ohio at Akron
08a0582n.06 Bird v. Brigano
    Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0583n.06 Farah v. Wellington
    Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown
08a0583n.06 Farah v. Wellington
    Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown
08a0584n.06 Elam & Miller, P.S.C. v. National City Bank of Kentucky
    Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Defendant Consolidated Mortgage, Inc. appeals the district court?s order substituting Elam & Miller, P.S.C. as the plaintiff in this case and the district court?s order granting Elam & Miller?s motion for summary judgment. After reviewing the record, the parties? briefs, and the applicable law, this court affirms the district court?s decision for the reasons stated in Judge Coffman?s summary judgment opinion and order. Elam & Miller, P.S.C. v. National City Bank of Ky., No. 04-239-JBC, 2007 WL 2702332 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 12, 2007).

08a0585n.06 Kathy Hill v. Bradley County Board of Educat
    Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08a0586n.06 David Cox v. Commissioner of Social Securit
    Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant, David Cox, appeals from the district court?s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee, Commissioner of Social Security. Cox filed the instant action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner denying Cox?s application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. Because we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner?s decision, we 1 affirm the district court?s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner.

08a0587n.06 USA v. Fletcher
    Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0588n.06 Virga Carter v. City of Wyoming
    Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0589n.06 Berger v. Medina Cnty Ohio Bd
    Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0590n.06 Rodriguez v. Mukasey
    Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0591n.06 Larry Kellum v. Commissioner Social Security
    Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
08a0592n.06 Sonjia Lindsey v. Whirlpool Corporation
    Northern District of Ohio at Toledo
08a0593n.06 Winkelman v. Parma School
    Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0594n.06 One Beacon Ins Co v. Chiusolo
    Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Gerard John Chiusolo owns a horse farm in Paris, Kentucky. He filed a claim with One Beacon Insurance Company, the provider of coverage for property loss on the farm, after a fire destroyed one of the horse barns. Suspecting arson, One Beacon launched an investigation. It concluded that the fire had been started by Chiusolo himself. After refusing to cover the loss, One Beacon filed a declaratory-judgment action in federal court that sought a ruling regarding its coverage responsibilities. The district court granted summary judgment to One Beacon, holding that Chiusolo had (a) failed to return a proof-of-loss form within the time period required by the policy, and (b) made material misrepresentations on the policy application, thus barring coverage as a matter of law. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

08a0595n.06 Michael Johnson v. Metropolitan Government of Nas
    Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0596n.06 Paducah & Louisville Railway, v. Quixx Corporation
    Western District of Kentucky at Owensboro

PER CURIAM. Following an eleven-car derailment, plaintiff railway sued the repair facility that serviced its railcar seven years prior to the accident. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants because it concluded, inter alia, that plaintiffs could not establish that defendants? alleged negligence proximately caused the derailment. After reviewing the record, the parties? briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that issuance of a panel opinion would not serve any jurisprudential purpose. Thus, we affirm the district court . . . .

08a0597n.06 Peno Trucking Inc. v. Commissioner Internal Revenue
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Full post as published by Sixth Circuit Cases on October 04, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Blog Posts
Search Blog Directory:

Search Blog Directory:

Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.9932 secs (new cache)