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

In 2006, Plaintiffs entered into a five-year oil and gas lease covering 47 acres in Ross Township, Ohio, and granting Chesapeake exclusive rights to “all oil and gas and their constituents” for $5.00 per mineral acre per year and a royalty on production. The lease provides for extension, if “Operations” are being “conducted on the Leasehold, or on lands pooled, unitized or combined with all or a portion of the Leasehold.” In 2011, Chesapeake submitted drilling-permit applications for property that did not include Plaintiffs’ property. Later, Chesapeake filed a “Declaration and Notice of Pooled Unit,” consisting of 21 properties, including Plaintiffs’ property, and declared that “operations and/or production … anywhere within the Unit shall be deemed to be operations and/or production on each separate tract sufficient to extend and maintain each included lease in the Unit.” It specified that production from the unit would be allocated among all leases in the unit proportional to the surface area of each lease. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the lease expired; Chesapeake filed a counterclaim. The district court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs, concluding that Chesapeake’s actions did not extend the lease because the lease required that a permit application pertaining to the leased property or a property already unitized with the leased property, be filed before the expiration of the lease. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. View "Henry v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC" on Justia Law

Deleon, a 53-year-old Hispanic male, was employed by the Kalamazoo County Road Commission for 28 years. Beginning in 1995, he was an “Area Superintendent” and generally received positive reviews. Deleon alleges a pervasive atmosphere of racial insensitivity and derogatory comments. In 2008, a vacancy arose for an “Equipment and Facilities Superintendent,” described as being in a garage with exposure to loud noises and diesel fumes. After an interview, Deleon did not receive the position. His computer skills were insufficient. In 2009, Deleon was involuntarily transferred to the position. Deleon objected, claiming that, in applying for the position, he demanded a raise because of the “hazard posed by diesel fumes and poor ventilation.” He did not receive a raise. Deleon claims that he developed bronchitis, a cough, and sinus headaches, and would blow black soot from his nostrils. Deleon’s first evaluation indicated that his performance was “acceptable in most critical areas but [was] not sufficiently above minimum satisfactory level in all areas.” Days after a fractious meeting with his supervisor, Deleon was hospitalized for five days. He claimed a work-induced mental breakdown and took eight months’ FMLA leave. Deleon’s psychiatrist cleared him to return to work, but the Commission had terminated him. Finding that Deleon did not suffer an “adverse employment action,” the district court dismissed his claims of discrimination. The Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that there was sufficient evidence of conditions that would support discrimination claims and that the fact that Deleon applied for the position did not disqualify him from showing that the employment action was “adverse.”View "Deleon v. Kalamazoo Cnty. Road Comm'n" on Justia Law

The former miner sued in 1992 and an administrative law judge determined that he was not medically qualified for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901 and indicated that Arkansas Coals was not the “responsible operator” required to pay benefits. About 17 years later, the miner filed a second claim. After finding that his medical condition had worsened and that he was now disabled, an ALJ awarded benefits and determined that Arkansas Coals was the responsible operator. The Benefits Review Board and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the company’s finality, waiver, and collateral estoppel arguments; the miner was entitled to bring a second claim under 20 C.F.R. 725.309(d)(4) and the determination that Arkansas Coals was the responsible operator was not “necessary” to the resolution of the initial claim. Substantial evidence supports the determination that Arkansas Coals is the responsible operator. View "Arkansas Coals, Inc. v. Lawson" on Justia Law

Maynes, a miner who developed pneumoconiosis after working in Consolidated’s coal mine for 25 years, received benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901-944, from 1997 until he died of respiratory failure in 2003. His widow sought survivors’ benefits. The then-current version of the BLBA conditioned her eligibility for benefits on proof that pneumoconiosis either caused or hastened her husband’s death. Her 2003 claim was denied. The Benefits Review Board and Sixth Circuit affirmed. In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, which amended the law so that survivors are automatically entitled to benefits if the miner received BLBA benefits during his lifetime. Congress specified that the changes would apply to claims filed after January 2005, but did not address whether persons whose claims had been denied under the previous eligibility framework, could receive benefits by filing a subsequent claim. The issue was answered in the affirmative by the Benefits Review Board and affirmed by the Third and Fourth Circuits. Although the Department of Labor, an administrative law judge, and the Benefits Review Board agreed Maynes was entitled to benefits, they disagreed about the appropriate commencement date for benefits. The Sixth Circuit rejected Consolidated’s appeal, upholding the 2009 commencement date. View "Consolidation Coal Co. v. Maynes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s neighbor, Yassine called the Dearborn police and reported that plaintiff was standing in the yard, staring into his window, and appeared to be intoxicated. Sergeant Peer arrived, interviewed Yassine, and approached plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff claims that he had chased his dog into the yard, then returned to his porch, where officers attacked him without warning. Plaintiff did not identify which officers took specific actions. Another neighbor testified that she saw two officers strike plaintiff and that the officers then departed and plaintiff got up and walked away. The officers and Yassine testified that plaintiff lunged at Officer Peer and that other officers took him down, arrested him, and drove directly to the police station. A video showed that plaintiff hit his head against the cage of the patrol car several times, contradicting plaintiff’s account. Medical examinations showed symptoms “suggestive of impaired consciousness.” Younes sued the officers and the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted summary judgment on state law claims of gross negligence as to the officers and battery as to Peer, but denied summary judgment on other claims, finding that issues of material fact remained concerning immunity. The Sixth Circuit dismissed, reasoning that the officers did not concede the most favorable view of the facts to plaintiff. View "Younes v. Pellerito" on Justia Law

Youngstown police attempted to pull over a stolen Cadillac believed to be involved in an earlier robbery. The driver attempted to flee and hit an unmarked police car that had its lights on as it drove toward the Cadillac. As the pursuit, which involved nine officers, continued, passengers in the Cadillac (driven by Christian) shot rifles at the pursuing police cars. Christian’s first state court trial ended in verdicts of not guilty on nine counts of felonious assault and in a hung jury on the remaining seven counts of complicity to felonious assault. The state sought to retry Christian on the seven complicity counts. Christian filed a habeas petition, claiming violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The district court denied the petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that complicity to felonious assault and felonious assault are not the same crime and that no ultimate fact necessary for his conviction of complicity to felonious assault was determined by the jury at the first trial. View "Christian v. Wellington" on Justia Law

Mateen pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B) after police discovered more than 600 images of child pornography on his computer. In 2006, Mateen had pleaded guilty to Gross Sexual Imposition in violation of Ohio Revised Code 2907.05. The state-court plea colloquy indicated that his victim was an eight-year-old girl. The district court imposed a ten-year statutory maximum term of imprisonment, concluding that a statutory enhancement (18 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2)) for recidivist sexual offenders did not apply to because Mateen’s prior conviction for Gross Sexual Imposition did not necessarily involve a minor or ward. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The state statute under which he was convicted covers several possible offenses and the information concerning the viction was not essential to Mateen’s guilty plea.View "United States v. Mateen" on Justia Law

Adams and Cooper were among 14 defendants charged, in a 39-count indictment, with conspiring to distribute cocaine and cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. Both pleaded guilty. Based on prior offenses, the district court found Adams and Cooper to be career offenders, applied the U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 sentencing enhancement, and sentenced them to 165 months and 120 months of imprisonment, respectively. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the application and constitutionality, under the Sixth Amendment, of the career-offender guidelines. Adams’s Tennessee conviction of aggravated assault did not qualify as a crime of violence under the categorical approach, but court documents demonstrated that Adams necessarily pleaded guilty to a Class C felony. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law

Shepard was convicted of three counts of receipt of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and one count of attempted receipt and was sentenced to 168 months in prison and five years on supervised release. The district court also imposed a $400 special assessment, ordered Shepard to pay $3,000 in restitution to a child victim, and imposed special conditions of supervision, prohibiting any access by Shepard to computers, cameras, or video equipment without prior written approval. The Sixth Circuit remanded for retrial, finding error in the court’s failure to replace a juror who asserted he would not view the pornographic images presented as evidence.View "United States v. Shepard" on Justia Law

Until 2001 Dean and Suiza competed to process and sell bottled milk to retailers. Suiza was the largest U.S. processor of milk and Dean was the second largest. Both purchased raw milk from other entities. DFA, a dairy farmer cooperative, was Suiza’s primary supplier and business partner. Dean obtained its raw milk predominantly from independent farmers. Dean and Suiza merged in 2001, becoming Dean Foods, hoping to obtain “distribution efficiencies and economies of scale,” for millions of dollars in cost savings. Certain agreements were negotiated, with input from the Department of Justice, which approved the proposed merger, subject to divestment of particular milk processing plants. Retailers of processed milk sued, charging violation of 15 U.S.C. 1, the Sherman Antitrust Act, by conspiring with a raw milk supplier-milk processor and the purchaser of the divested processing facilities to divide markets and restrict output. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dean Foods, finding insufficient proof of injury and failure to establish the relevant antitrust geographic market, primarily because plaintiff’s expert’s testimony was excluded. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the expert should not have been excluded and that the conclusions regarding injury were based on flawed propositions. View "Food Lion, LLC v. Dean Foods Co." on Justia Law