Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
PurposivismTextualism
In [5], opinion relies on the 'unambiguous' virus exclusion to bar coverage, applying plain contractual text without resort to purpose or extrinsic evidence. Walters & Mason Retail, Inc. v. … ↗
In this case, three defendants affiliated with the MS-13 gang—Jorge Flores, Kevin Tidwell, and Jose Pineda-Caceres—were charged with multiple federal offenses, including RICO conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity, conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, and murder in aid of racketeering, based on their alleged roles in several shootings and killings in Tennessee between 2014 and 2021. After an 18-day joint trial, a jury convicted them, and the district court imposed lengthy sentences, including life imprisonment plus additional years for Flores and Tidwell. On appeal, the defendants raised various challenges, such as Flores contesting the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a protective sweep, Tidwell objecting to aspects of voir dire, expert testimony, co-conspirator statements, and the sufficiency of the evidence, and Pineda-Caceres arguing that the exclusion of two witnesses violated his rights. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences in full, holding that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, that the evidence was sufficient, and that any potential issues were either harmless or did not warrant reversal.
In Daniel Grady v. John Cratsenburg, the plaintiffs alleged that officers John Cratsenburg and Austin Pearson arrested them in retaliation for protected speech during a late-night shooting investigation in Michigan, after the Gradys approached officers’ perimeter around a suspected shooter’s home, refused repeated commands to step back, and loudly questioned the officers’ authority. The district court found probable cause for the arrests under Michigan law but allowed the First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim to proceed under the narrow exception recognized in Nieves v. Bartlett, citing other onlookers who were not arrested. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the cited onlookers were not similarly situated because they stayed well outside the perimeter and did not defy officers’ commands, while the Gradys had done both. Without objective evidence meeting the Nieves exception, the general rule that probable cause defeats such claims applied, and the court remanded for further proceedings.
Anthony Camarca sued the City of Covington Police Department and several officers after an early-morning hotel lobby disturbance following a family wedding, during which his intoxicated wife and sister-in-law fought, prompting a 911 call. Camarca was arrested after he ignored officers’ instructions to remain in place, directed profanity at them, and attempted to lead his wife away; he alleged federal constitutional claims including unlawful seizure, excessive force, and equal protection violations, plus related state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the officers had at least reasonable suspicion to detain Camarca and used reasonable force to subdue him after he physically resisted, that no similarly situated individuals were treated differently for equal-protection purposes, and that the city faced no Monell liability absent an underlying constitutional violation. The state-law claims likewise failed because they depended on the unsuccessful federal claims.
Eugene Fishback was convicted by a federal jury in the Eastern District of Kentucky on multiple counts of drug distribution after evidence showed he bought roughly 150,000 fentanyl-laced pills from a supplier over several years and resold them, with additional seizures of fentanyl, carfentanil, and firearms linked to properties he used. The district court imposed a 480-month sentence, applying several Sentencing Guidelines enhancements. On appeal, Fishback challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the district court’s application of enhancements for drug quantity, possession of firearms, obstruction of justice, and other factors. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the trial evidence—including repeated drug recoveries tied directly to Fishback, witness testimony, and surveillance—was sufficient for a rational jury to convict, and that the district court did not clearly err in applying the Guidelines based on the facts presented.
Walters & Mason Retail, Inc., a clothing retailer operating stores nationwide, purchased a commercial insurance policy from Hartford Fire Insurance Company and later sought coverage for business-interruption losses after closing or restricting operations due to COVID-19-related government orders. Hartford denied the claims, leading Walters & Mason to sue for breach of contract and bad faith in federal court in Pennsylvania; the case was transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding no coverage under either Tennessee or Pennsylvania law, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that Walters & Mason forfeited its argument for applying the laws of all twenty-two states where it suffered losses, as well as its contention that it should prevail under Tennessee law, by failing to properly raise or preserve those issues on appeal. The court also noted that the policy’s virus exclusion unambiguously barred coverage for losses caused by the spread of COVID-19.
Joshua Elswick sued Deputy Ryan Derrough under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive force and deliberate indifference after Derrough used a low-output GLOVE compliance device to shock him several times on the arm during booking at a Kentucky jail. Elswick had been arrested following a domestic dispute, was intoxicated and combative due to his mental health conditions, and resisted efforts to remove his restraints while expressing paranoia that officers intended to kill him. The district court granted summary judgment to Derrough, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the limited GLOVE shocks were a reasonable response to Elswick’s active resistance after de-escalation attempts failed, and that Derrough was not deliberately indifferent because he twice involved a nurse for evaluation and Elswick had access to potable water that he chose not to drink.