Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Minor political parties sought ballot access (Green Party of Tennessee and Constitution Party of Tennessee) and sued, alleging that requirements to qualify for the Tennessee ballot as a “recognized minor party” were overly restrictive and impermissibly burdened First Amendment rights and were unconstitutionally vague and constituted improper delegation of legislative authority; that provisions governing the order in which political parties are listed on the general-election ballot violate the Equal Protection Clause; and that prohibition on the use of the words “independent” and “nonpartisan” in minor-party names contravenes the First Amendment. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on all claims, enjoined enforcement, ordered that the plaintiffs be placed on the November 2012 ballot, and directed the state to conduct random drawing to determine the order in which each party would appear on the ballot. The Sixth Circuit granted a stay with respect to the random-public-drawing. In the meantime, the Tennessee General Assembly amended some, but not all, of the invalidated provisions, relaxing the requirements. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the district court erred on some claims, that some claims were moot, and that the trial court should initially determine the validity of the amendments. View "Green Party of TN v. Hargett" on Justia Law

Moore voluntarily surrendered to Detroit police in connection with a shooting homicide. He asked an officer to call a number on an attorney’s business card. The officer called and reached an answering service and so informed Moore. Moore indicated he wanted to make a statement and signed a waiver of rights. The officer questioned Moore, who made an incriminating statement. There was no clear subsequent request for an attorney. The statement was admitted at trial, over Moore’s objections. Moore was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, being a felon in possession, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life, three to five years, and two years imprisonment, respectively. His conviction was affirmed; Michigan courts denied his post-conviction motion. Moore sought federal habeas corpus. The district court denied his petition. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Michigan court unreasonably found a waiver absent a factual finding, and despite evidence to the contrary, that Moore, not the officer, had reinitiated communications. The trial court effectively required that Moore assert his right to counsel a second time in order to secure it. The error was not harmless. View "Moore v. Bell" on Justia Law

In 2005, the Coyers entered into a mortgage agreement with Option One to purchase property in Linwood, Michigan. Subsequently, HSBC purchased the mortgage. After the Coyers allegedly stopped making payment to HSBC in 2010, HSBC began foreclosure proceedings pursuant to the mortgage contract’s “power of sale” clause. The Coyers filed a complaint asserting numerous allegations concerning alleged illegal conduct routinely practiced in the mortgage industry. They claimed: breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; common law fraud; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of HSBC. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Coyer v. HSBC Mortg. Servs/, Inc." on Justia Law

Michigan promotes recycling of beverage containers by offering a cash refund of a 10-cent deposit to consumers and distributors. Retailers are required to accept empty containers of beverages that they sell. The Bottle Bill requires containers to indicate the state and the refund value as “MI 10ç” on each container. To address under-redemption, Michigan mandated that unclaimed deposits escheat to the state. A 1998 study estimated that fraudulent redemption of containers originating outside Michigan resulted in annual loss of $15.6 to $30 million. Michigan criminalized fraudulent redemption and, in 2008, required that, in addition to the MI 10ç designation, containers for certain beverages bear a “symbol, mark, or other distinguishing characteristic” to allow a reverse vending machine to determine whether a container is returnable. An industry association claimed violation of the Commerce Clause. The district court granted defendants summary judgment, finding that Mich. Comp. Laws 445.572a(10) is neither discriminatory nor extraterritorial and that a question of material fact existed on the extent of the burden on interstate commerce. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, finding that the unique mark requirement is not discriminatory. However, because that requirement forces distributors to adopt the unique labeling system, without consideration of less burdensome alternatives, it has impermissible extraterritorial effect. View "Am. Beverage Ass'n v. Snyder" on Justia Law

Campbell and Gemperline were attacked on different dates by a canine unit police dog (Spike). They filed suit under 42 U.S.C 1983 against the canine’s handler, the chief of police, and the city, alleging excessive force, failure to supervise, failure to properly train, and state law claims for assault and battery. The district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Prior to both bite incidents, the handler notified supervisors that he had been unable to keep up with maintenance training and repeatedly requested that they allow him time to attend training sessions, but his requests were denied. Spike’s state certifications lapsed for several months. There was evidence that Spike was involved in biting incidents with growing frequency in the first three years of his deployment in the field. A jury could also reasonably conclude that the handler acted in bad faith or in a wanton or reckless manner, based on the plaintiffs’ allegations about his conduct and statements at the time of the attacks. View "Campbell v. City of Springboro" on Justia Law

Hensley worked in various capacities as a coal miner at various times between 1972 and 1988. He also smoked half a pack of cigarettes every day for at least 10 years. From 1990 to 2010, Hensley sought benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901. In 2010, after two rejections, an ALJ concluded that Hensley suffered from a disabling form of pneumoconiosis caused by his jobs in the coal mines and awarded him benefits. The Benefits Review Board affirmed. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the ALJ failed to account for relevant record material, relying solely on x-ray evidence, while other evidence cut the other way, permitting a finding that Hensley does not suffer from pneumoconiosis. The biopsy of Hensley’s lungs came back negative, CT scans may have been inconclusive, and several physicians testified against an award of benefits. View "Dixie Fuel Co., LLC v. Dir. Office of Workers' Comp. Programs" on Justia Law

Officer Martin was called to a grocery store following an alleged shoplifting. Martin took possession of a cell phone allegedly dropped by the perpetrator. Based on a conversation with a person listed in the phone’s “contacts” list, he went to Summit Medical Center where Sutton worked. The confrontation between the two resulted in Sutton’s arrest for shoplifting. A jury acquitted Sutton, who subsequently sued Martin and the Nashville and Davidson County Metropolitan Government for federal constitutional violations and state common law and statutory violations. The district court dismissed Sutton’s claims based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments but denied the motion as to Sutton’s Fourth Amendment claim regarding an unreasonable seizure, finding that he had adequately stated a cause of action and that Martin was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that Martin is protected by qualified immunity with regard to his initial contact with Sutton and in continuing to detain Sutton after the latter was positively identified by the store’s security guard. Allegations concerning Martin’s conduct between those two events were, however, sufficient to state a claim that precludes qualified immunity at this stage in the litigation View "Sutton v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty." on Justia Law

In 2003, in the getaway from an armed bank robbery, Parks crashed his car while fleeing police and killed his passenger, a co-conspirator. Parks pled guilty to bank robbery resulting in the killing of another (18 U.S.C. 2113(e)) and agreed to a sentence of 372 months, but reserved his right to appeal whether a 2113(e) violation requires mens rea. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, but remanded with respect to the mandatory minimum penalty. On remand, the district court held that Congress, in amending 2113(e) when it enacted the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, intended to increase the mandatory minimum sentence from 10 years to life imprisonment or death in all 2113(e) cases where death results. The district court also concluded that it was bound by the prior plea agreement. Parks moved to withdraw his plea and to declare 2113(e) unconstitutional. The district court concluded that the arguments were beyond the scope of remand and re-sentenced Parks to 372 months of imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court correctly applied the Circuit Court’s mandate and found that the statute requires a mandatory minimum sentence of life, even though Parks arranged for a plea agreement of less than life. View "United States v. Park" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy court held that fees owed to a court-appointed guardian ad litem constitute a “domestic support obligation” under Section 101(14A) of the Bankruptcy Code and are, therefore, a nondischargeable debt under Section 523(a)(5) of the Code. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. View "In re: Kassicieh" on Justia Law

In 1998, Rimmer was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Ellsworth. Rimmer later learned that the federal government had conducted a joint investigation of Ellsworth’s murder with the Memphis Police Department, which, he claims, produced exculpatory evidence. Rimmer instituted state post-conviction proceedings, and obtained some, but not all, of the allegedly exculpatory evidence from the police department. Rimmer submitted a FOIA request that sought all relevant FBI documents. The FBI released 189 full or partially redacted pages from a total of 616 pages. The U.S. Department of Justice upheld the limited release. Rimmer filed claims under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 702, the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. 1361, and FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(b). The FBI then determined that relevant files contained 786 pages and released them, but 704 pages were partially redacted. The district court dismissed Rimmer’s APA and mandamus claims as precluded by an adequate remedy under FOIA and granted the government summary judgment on Rimmer’s FOIA claim, holding that the redactions were proper under FOIA Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D) and that, in the case of the 7(C) redactions, there was not a “countervailing public benefit” to support disclosure of otherwise protected information. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Rimmer v. Holder" on Justia Law