U.S. 6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Jun 23-27, 2008 (1 Ky published; 1 Ky NPO)
Opinions in the cases listed below were filed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
| Opinion | Short Title/District |
|---|---|
| 08a0215p.06 2008/06/23 |
LoCoco v. Med Sav Ins Co. Southern District of Ohio at Columbus |
| 08a0216p.06 2008/06/23 |
Planned Parenthood v. Taft Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati |
| 08a0217p.06 2008/06/24 |
Thornton v. Fed Express Corp Western District of Tennessee at Memphis |
| 08a0218p.06 2008/06/24 |
USA v. Hall Eastern District of Michigan at Flint |
| 08a0219p.06 2008/06/24 |
USA v. McGee Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids |
| 08a0220p.06 2008/06/24 |
Justin Parsons v. City of Pontiac Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
| 08a0221p.06 2008/06/24 |
Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins Co Northern District of Ohio at Akron RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This case requires us to address the scope of protection that should be afforded to employees who disseminate confidential documents in violation of their employer’s privacy policy in the context of employment-related litigation. In December of 2005, Kathleen Niswander’s employment with The Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) was terminated after CIC learned that Niswander had delivered confidential, proprietary documents to her lawyers in a class-action lawsuit against CIC. She was fired for breaching the company’s Privacy Policy and Code of Conduct. This caused Niswander to file a separate lawsuit against CIC, alleging retaliation under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). |
| 08a0222p.06 2008/06/26 |
USA v. Pacheco-Lopez Western District of Kentucky at Louisville MERRITT, Circuit Judge. The defendant, Pedro Pacheco-Lopez (Lopez), challenges the district court’s denial of his request to suppress certain statements made prior to his arrest. The defendant argues that his initial statements – made prior to receiving his Miranda warnings – should have been suppressed because they were responses to a custodial interrogation and do not fall under the “booking exception” to Miranda. Additionally, the defendant argues that his later admission, made after receiving his warning, resulted from impermissible “Miranda-in-the-middle” questioning. Because the booking exception applies narrowly to biographical questions and has rarely been applied outside of a police station, we hold that the defendant’s first statements should have been suppressed. We similarly find that Lopez’s post-Miranda admission should be suppressed. Accordingly, the district court’s decision is REVERSED. |
| 08a0223p.06 2008/06/26 |
Lee v. Shapiro Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
| 08a0224p.06 2008/06/26 |
Brown v. Bradshaw Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown |
| 08a0225p.06 2008/06/26 |
Rashid v. Mukasey Board of Immigration Appeals |
| 08a0226p.06 2008/06/26 |
John B. v. M. Goetz, Jr. Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville |
| 08a0227p.06 2008/06/26 |
Schafer v. Defiance Northern District of Ohio at Toledo |
| 08a0228a.06 2008/06/26 |
J & R Marketing v. General Motors Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
| 08a0229p.06 2008/06/27 |
Assoc Indust KY v. US Liab Ins Grp Western District of Kentucky at Louisville |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
Alliance Community v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p. 2008/06/27 |
Villages of Larchmnt v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
Natl Assoc of Cntys v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
NJ Pub Advocate v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
National Assn Tele v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
Greater Metro v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
City of Tampa FL v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
Natl Cbl Telecom v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
Natl League Cities v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
US Conf of Mayors v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
Alliance Comm v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
Fairfax Cty VA v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0230p.06 2008/06/27 |
Arundel Cty MD v. FCC Federal Communications Commission |
| 08a0231p.06 2008/06/27 |
USA v. Houston Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville |
| 08a0232p.06 2008/06/27 |
Kirby v. St. Clair County Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
| 08a0233p.06 2008/06/27 |
USA v. McConer Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS
| Opinion | Short Title/District |
|---|---|
| 08a0359n.06 | McKnight v. Gates Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville |
| 08a0360n.06 | Reynosa v. Schultz Western District of Michigan at Lansing |
| 08a0361n.06 | Squire v. Scher Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati |
| 08a0362n.06 | Diepenhorst v. Battle Creek Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids |
| 08a0364n.06 | Essex Ins Co v. Fidelity & Guaranty Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
| 08a0365n.06 | Saneh v. Mukasey Board of Immigration Appeals |
| 08a0366n.06 | USA v. Gravely Southern District of Ohio at Columbus |
| 08a0363n.06 | Lupo v. DaimlerChrysler Corp Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor |
| 08a0367n.06 | Bilak-Thompson v. Dollar Tree Stores Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
| 08a0368n.06 | Pittman v. Franklin Western District of Tennessee at Memphis |
| 08a0369n.06 | Ellis v. Buzzi Unicem USA Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga |
| 08a0370n.06 | Astec Inc v. Rouse Polymerics Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga |
| 08a0371n.06 | Roberts v. Principi Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville |
| 08a0372n.06 | Kroger Company v. United Food & Commercial Worke Eastern District of Michigan at Flint |
| 08a0373n.06 | Edah v. Trident Seafoods Southern District of Ohio at Columbus |
| 08a0374n.06 | Mostoller v. BGSA LLC Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville |
| 08a0375n.06 | Margaret Kidd v. Commissioner of Social Securit Eastern District of Kentucky at London |
| 08a0376n.06 | Coleman-Bey v. Bouchard Western District of Michigan at Marquette |
Comments