Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Living constitutionalismOriginalism
In [1], the opinion requires government ownership/control and intended/foreseeable harm for a physical taking, applying a strict interpretation of the Takings Clause. Willienard Banks v. Charter Twp.… ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In [1], the court rejects expansive takings and due-process claims against local government actions on flooding and easements, showing skepticism toward government liability. Willienard Banks v. Charter Twp.… ↗
Judicial activismJudicial restraint
In [1], the opinion affirms dismissal of constitutional claims for failure to meet established elements, reflecting restraint in not expanding judicial oversight of local decisions. Willienard Banks v. Charter Twp.… ↗
Investors who lost money with advisor Constantine Antonas sued PNC Bank and its Ohio employee Demetrios Koutrodimos in state court, claiming the defendants knew of Antonas’s suspicious wire transfers yet approved them, giving rise to claims under the Ohio Uniform Fiduciary Act, negligence, fraud, aiding and abetting, civil liability for criminal acts, and conspiracy. PNC removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, asserting the non-diverse employee had been fraudulently joined. The district court denied remand, dismissed the employee, and later dismissed the claims against PNC; the Sixth Circuit affirmed. It held that the complaint alleged no colorable claims against Koutrodimos because it failed to plead any specific misrepresentation or concealment by him, Ohio does not recognize aiding-and-abetting fraud, and the facts did not show the required criminal intent or purposeful participation for the remaining torts. The court further held that the Ohio Uniform Fiduciary Act shielded PNC absent adequately pleaded actual knowledge or bad faith by the bank, and that the complaint otherwise failed federal pleading standards.
In PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty, a former PCC engineer accepted a director of engineering role at a competitor after 26 years with the company and without a non-compete agreement; PCC sued under federal and state trade secrets law after discovering he had printed documents containing confidential airfoil information before departing, and it sought a preliminary injunction barring him from disclosing the information or working on similar products. The district court denied the injunction, holding that PCC had failed to prove each of the four preliminary injunction factors by clear and convincing evidence. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, ruling that this per-factor heightened-proof requirement was legally erroneous. Instead, district courts must weigh the four factors—likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, harm to others, and the public interest—under a sliding-scale approach to determine whether they clearly favor relief as a whole, with denial required only if the plaintiff shows no likelihood of success or no irreparable injury. The court further held that federal equitable standards govern rather than Ohio’s clear-and-convincing-evidence rule for each factor.
Touch-N-Buy LLC entered into an independent representative agreement with United Consumer Financial Services (UCFS) under which it solicited merchants for consumer financing contracts and earned commissions on accepted agreements. After UCFS terminated the relationship, Touch-N-Buy sued for breach of contract, claiming it was owed ongoing post-termination commissions, that UCFS improperly modified merchant contracts without notice, and that UCFS engaged in tortious interference, fraud, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all claims. It held that the agreement’s termination provision (Paragraph 14) entitled Touch-N-Buy only to commissions on contracts accepted before termination and did not require continued payments afterward, that UCFS’s contract modifications were expressly permitted, and that the remaining claims either lacked particularity, were barred by the existence of an express contract, or sought unavailable remedies.
Julio Francisco Sebastian, a Guatemalan native identifying as Chuj (an indigenous Mayan group), and his minor son sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection after entering the U.S. without documentation in 2017, claiming past persecution and a well-founded fear of future harm based on his race and membership in the particular social group of “Guatemalan Chuj males without police protection.” The incidents included a sexual assault by a teacher when Francisco was eleven and several 2017 encounters with gang members involving robbery, beatings, extortionate phone calls, and threats. An immigration judge denied all claims, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and the Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court held that the gang incidents did not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground and that any presumption of future persecution from the remote childhood assault was rebutted by changed circumstances due to the passage of more than two decades without ongoing contact or threat. The CAT claim failed for lack of evidence that future torture was more likely than not with the acquiescence of a public official.
Willienard Banks and Aaron Jackson sued Bloomfield Township, the Oakland County Road Commission, and several officials after intermittent flooding damaged their properties in a Michigan subdivision, alleging that a 2019 road-improvement project and the defendants’ failure to repair broken drain pipes in a private easement constituted a physical taking under the federal and state constitutions as well as violations of procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, and civil conspiracy. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that no federal taking occurred because any increased drainage from the road project was not a foreseeable or intended result and the government had no ownership or control over the easement or pipes, while the state takings claim was not properly preserved. The remaining federal claims failed because the plaintiffs could not show state action depriving them of property, conscience-shocking conduct, differential treatment of similarly situated owners, or an agreement to commit an unlawful act.
Ernest Shropshire pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Ohio to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl, as well as two distribution counts involving those drugs. The district court sentenced him to 121 months in prison—an above-Guidelines term after notifying the parties it might vary upward and after reviewing evidence of larger drug quantities from uncharged conduct, including Shropshire’s own admissions. Shropshire appealed, claiming the sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, made reasonable inferences supported by a preponderance of the evidence, adequately explained its decision, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence.
criminal law
Affiliations
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — appointed by George W. Bush