Miller v. Gettel

10 Citing cases

  1. LaPine v. Wayne Cnty.

    No. 21-11308 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 20, 2023)

    Under Michigan law a negligence claim “requires proof of ‘four elements: duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages.'” Miller v. Gettel, No. 22-1034, 2023 WL 2945340, at *10 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023) (quoting Fultz v. Union-Com. Assocs., 470 Mich. 460, 463, 683 N.W.2d 587, 590 (2004)). “‘Actionable negligence presupposes the existence of a legal relationship between parties by which the injured party is owed a duty by the other, and such duty must be imposed by law.'” HDI Glob. SE v. Magnesium Prod. of Am., Inc., No. 360385, 2023 WL 2938557, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2023) (quoting Clark v. Dalman, 379 Mich. 251, 260-61, 150 N.W.2d 755, 759-60 (1967)).

  2. Ramsey v. Rivard

    694 F. Supp. 3d 955 (E.D. Mich. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    In addition to the Fourth Amendment claim, "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment bars an officer from knowingly creating false evidence to obtain a conviction.' " Miller v. Gettel, No. 22-1034, 2023 WL 2945340, at *6 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023) (quoting Sanford v. City of Detroit, 815 F. App'x 856, 859 (6th Cir. 2020)). Here, it is undisputed that the purported eyewitness identification of Sammons by DyJuan Jones was the centerpiece of the State's case at trial and was essential to the decisions to initiate and continue the charges.

  3. Lech v. Gettel

    22-cv-11197 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 21, 2023)

    On April 14, 2023, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion resolving both appeals. Miller v. Gettel, No. 221034, 2023 WL 2945340 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023). Pursuant to the Sixth Circuit Opinion, the only claims remaining in Miller are the negligence and gross negligence claim in Count V. Id. at *12.

  4. Lech v. Gettel

    No. 23-1753 (6th Cir. Jun. 3, 2024)

    Like Lech, Miller flunked a Michigan DMT test and was charged with driving while intoxicated. Miller v. Gettel, Nos. 22-1034/1046, 2023 WL 2945340, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023). After Miller pled guilty, the state dismissed Miller's conviction, citing the Intoximeters issues.

  5. Nugent v. Spectrum Juvenile Justice Servs.

    72 F.4th 135 (6th Cir. 2023)   Cited 19 times

    As our court has stated many times before, "[c]onsidering that plaintiff bears the burden on this issue, this failure alone renders this test inapplicable." Ellison, 48 F.3d at 196; accord Tahfs, 316 F.3d at 593; Marie, 771 F.3d at 363; Miller v. Gettel, 2023 WL 2945340, at *4 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023); Cleary v. Cnty. of Macomb, 409 F. App'x 890, 901 n.6 (6th Cir. 2011); Reguli v. Guffee, 371 F. App'x 590, 600 (6th Cir. 2010); Durante v. Fairlane Town Ctr., 201 F. App'x 338, 342 (6th Cir. 2006). The same is true for the present case.

  6. Young v. Jindal

    No. 21-12170 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 6, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    Miller v. Gettel, No. 22-1034, 2023 WL 2945340, at *8-9 (quoting Peatross v. City of Memphis, 818 F.3d 233, 242 (6th Cir. 2016)). There must be allegations that “the supervisor either encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it.” Id.

  7. Posey v. City of Cleveland

    1:22-cv-170 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2024)

    , he appears to argue that Snyder knowingly fabricated the email's contents for purposes of obtaining a conviction-an action the Sixth Circuit has recognized as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Miller v. Gettel, No. 22-1034, 2023 WL 2945340, at *6 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023) (quoting Sanford v. City of Detroit, 815 Fed.Appx. 856, 859 (6th Cir. 2020)) (“The Fourteenth Amendment bars an officer from knowingly creating false evidence to obtain a conviction.”)

  8. Young v. Jindal

    2:21-cv-12170 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2023)

    Miller v. Gettel, No. 22-1034, 2023 WL 2945340, at *8-9 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023).

  9. Rogers v. United States

    1:08-cr-02 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2023)

    It is currently unclear in this circuit whether Brady material must be disclosed prior to entering into a plea agreement with a defendant. Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 621 (6th Cir. 2014); Miller v. Gettel, No. 221034/1046, 2023 WL 2945340 at *7 (6th Cir. April 14, 2023). However, the Court need not consider whether there is an obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence prior to entering into a plea agreement because Rogers has not explained how the alleged statement is exculpatory. She argues that the alleged statement establishes that the United States had a motive to fabricate the four-million-dollar loan.

  10. Bethel v. Bobby

    2:10-cv-391 (S.D. Ohio May. 17, 2023)

    (“[the defendant's] guilty plea precludes her from claiming that the government's failure to disclose ... was a Brady violation.”); Miller v. Gettel, 2023 WL 2945340, at *7 (6th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023), citing Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 62122 (6th Cir. 2014)(“In the § 1983 context, however, we have held that there is no ‘clearly established obligation [for state and federal law enforcement officers] to disclose exculpatory Brady material to the prosecutors in time to be put to effective use in plea bargaining.'”); McCann v. Mangialardi, 337 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Ruiz indicates a significant distinction between impeachment information and exculpatory evidence... it is highly likely that the Supreme Court would find a violation of the Due Process Clause if prosecutors.. .fail to disclose such information to a defendant before he enters into a guilty plea.”); Smith v. Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127, 1148 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing the applicability of Brady to plea bargains); United States v. Ohiri, 133 Fed.Appx. 555, 562 (10th Cir. 2005)