Sixth Circuit Cases

Sixth Circuit Holds that TILA Recission Claims are Not Maintainable as Class Actions

Sixth Circuit Holds that TILA Recission Claims are Not Maintainable as Class Actions from Federal Civil Rules Bulletin

Sixth Circuit Holds Administrative Costs Chargeable Only to Parties and Not their Counsel Under Rule 54(d)(1)

Sixth Circuit Holds Administrative Costs Chargeable Only to Parties and Not their Counsel Under Rule 54(d)(1) from the Federal Civil Practice Bulletin Blog.

Sixth Circuit Notes Split Re Whether Deadline for Filing Motion to Reopen Immigration Hearings May be Equitably Estopped

Sixth Circuit Notes Split Re Whether Deadline for Filing Motion to Reopen Immigration Hearings May be Equitably Estopped from Split Circuits Blog

Sixth Circuit Weighs in On Circuit Split Re: Employer Fee Liability Under 33 U.S.C. § 928(b)

Sixth Circuit Weighs in On Circuit Split Re: Employer Fee Liability Under 33 U.S.C. § 928(b) from Split Decisions Blog

E.D. Michigan Notes Split Re: Whether “Class of One” Claims Should be Allowed in the Employment Context

E.D. Michigan Notes Split Re: Whether “Class of One” Claims Should be Allowed in the Employment Context from Split Circuits Blog

6th Cir. Sides with 8th Cir. in Holding that Carrying a Concealed Weapon Does Not Qualify as a “Violent Felony” Under the Armed Career Criminal Act

6th Cir. Sides with 8th Cir. in Holding that Carrying a Concealed Weapon Does Not Qualify as a “Violent Felony” Under the Armed Career Criminal Act from Split Circuits Blog

Court Order Filed 10/04/06 in ACLU v. Nat'l Security Agency More Information

Court Order Filed 10/04/06 in ACLU v. Nat'l Security Agency More Information

CA6 Case: Judge: Bad work by lawyers may save clients [Courier Journal]

Judge: Bad work by lawyers may save clients

Overturned death penalties cited

Lawyers might be tempted to offer a weak defense in death penalty cases because many execution sentences are being overturned due to lawyer incompetence, the chief judge of a four-state federal appeals court said in an opinion released yesterday.

Here is link to full text of decision:

Poindexter v. Mitchell
Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
7/24/2006  06a0257p.06 

CA6 Decisions: Split Circuit Blog Note On Franks Reviews

From Split Circuit Blog is a posting which addresses a CA6 decision in its body:

Eleventh Circuit notes Split re Standard of Review for Denial of Franks Hearings

Per U.S. v. Arbolaez, --- F.3d ----, 2006 WL 1493833 (11th Cir. Jun. 1, 2006):

Generally, a court's decision about whether to hold an evidentiary hearing lies within that court's sound discretion and will be reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dynalectric Co., 859 F.2d 1559, 1580 (11th Cir.1988). We have not stated a precise standard of review for a district court's denial of a Franks [v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)] hearing [to challenge the veracity of the affidavit supporting the search warrant], and other circuits are split on the issue.FN11 Because, as was the case for the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Stewart,“the more exacting de novo standard of review is satisfied” here, we need not address the issue further. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295, 304 (6th Cir.2002).

Footnote 11. Compare United States v. Fairchild, 122 F.3d 605, 610 (8th Cir.1997) (review for abuse of discretion), United States v. Skinner, 972 F.2d 171, 177 (7th Cir.1992) (review for clear error), United States v. Hadfield, 918 F.2d 987, 992 (1st Cir.1990) (same), and United States v. One Parcel of Property, 897 F.2d 97, 100 (2d Cir.1990) (same), with United States v. Homick, 964 F.2d 899, 904 (9th Cir.1992) ( de novo review), and United States v. Mueller, 902 F.2d 336, 341 (5th Cir.1990) (same); see also United States v. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295, 304 (6th Cir.2002) (discussing split).

CA6 Decisions: "E.D. Tenn. Discusses Split Re Right to Indemnity under ERISA" [Split Circuits]

E.D. Tenn. Discusses Split Re Right to Indemnity under ERISA

Per Henderlight v. Lay, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1663695 (E.D. Tenn., June 14, 2006):

Finally, the Court turns to third-party defendant's argument that third-party plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted because there is no right to indemnity under ERISA. There are two lines of cases, neither of which clearly resolves whether there is such a right. …Considering the non-fiduciary line of cases first, there is very little law, but a right to contribution or indemnification from a non-fiduciary may not exist under ERISA. See Glaziers & Glassworkers v. Newbridge, 823 F. Supp. 1191, 1193–96 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (collecting cases). On the other hand, the Sixth Circuit has discussed the question without deciding it, and has suggested that a right to contribution from a non-fiduciary could only exist if the non-fiduciary shares common liability with the fiduciary in a direct suit by participants. See McDannold v. Star Bank, 261 F.3d 478, 486 (6th Cir.2001).

Turning to the co-fiduciary line of cases, the law in the Sixth Circuit is only slightly clearer in suggesting that contribution probably is not available from a co-fiduciaries in favor of a party that has breached its fiduciary duties to an ERISA plan. See Roberts v. Taussig, 39 F.Supp.2d 1010, 1012-13 (N.D.Ohio 1999); Williams v. Provident Inv. Counsel, Inc., 279 F.Supp.2d 894, 898 (N.D.Ohio 2003). On the other hand, the Sixth Circuit has not addressed the issue directly, and other circuits are split. Compare Chemung Coal Trust Co. v. Sovan Bank/Maryland, 939 F.2d 12 (2d Cir.1991) (recognizing right of contribution among co-fiduciaries in ERISA action) with Kim v. Fujikawa, 871 F.2d 1427, 1432-33 (9th Cir.1989) (concluding ERISA does not permit breaching fiduciary to claim right of contribution from co-fiduciary). See also Free v. Briody, 732 F.2d 1331, 1336-38 (7th Cir.1984) (holding fiduciary may make claim for contribution under ERISA). Although this area of the law is fraught with uncertainty, what is clear is that a starting point for determining whether there is a right to contribution, if such a right exists, may depend upon whether a party is a co-fiduciary or non-fiduciary under ERISA.