Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Established on December 10, 1869 by the Judiciary Act of 1869 as a circuit judgeship for the Sixth Circuit Reassigned to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by the Judiciary Act of 1891: Jackson: TN: 1891–1893 Lurton: TN: 1893–1909 Knappen: MI: 1910–1924 Moorman: KY: 1925–1938 Hamilton: KY: 1938–1945 S ...
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, concluding Title VII did include protection for transgender people, which Harris Funeral Homes petitioned the Supreme Court to review. About a month before the Supreme Court decision, Stephens died from health complications.
In Taylor v.City of Saginaw, et al., No. 17-2126 (6th Cir. 2019), [1] the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the practice of “chalking” in which parking enforcement officers apply chalk to mark the tires of parked vehicles in order to track the duration of time for which those vehicles have been parked, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment to the ...
Tennessee v. Federal Communications Commission, 832 F.3d 597 (2016), was a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, [1] holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have the authority to preempt states from enforcing "anti-expansion" statutes that prohibit local municipal broadband networks from being expanded into nearby communities.
Consumers' Research v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 21-3886 (2023), was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, on a challenge by Consumers' Research, a free-market advocacy organization, against the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund program.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ordered Kennedy's name removed from the ballot, but the Michigan Supreme Court, on which Democratic nominees hold a 4-3 edge, reversed that ruling in a split decision.
546 U.S. 1 Decided October 11, 2005. Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the habeas corpus petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not arguing his federal claim of prosecutorial misconduct in state court, which it concluded only because the state court's opinion failed to discuss that argument.
Alerding v. Ohio High School Athletic Association, 779 F.2d 315 (6th Cir. 1985) [1] was a court case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which held that the right to participate in interscholastic sports is not a fundamental privilege protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution.