Roth v. Guzman
650 F.3d 603 | Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | 2011
Holding Summary
State motor vehicle officials are entitled to qualified immunity when disclosing personal information based on a requester's express written representation of a permissible purpose, even if the requester later misuses or rediscloses the information.
Defendants' disclosure was expressly for a permitted purpose.
Related Cases
Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party
Whether a defendant qualifies as an 'employer' under ADEA is a substantive element of the plaintiff's claim, not merely a jurisdictional question, and must be decided by a jury rather than dismissed by the judge under Rule 12(b)(1).
Intergen N v. v. Grina
A party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes unless it has agreed to do so; InterGen, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreements, is not bound by arbitration clauses in contracts signed by other parties.
Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.
Local Government Code § 89.004's presentment requirement is a condition precedent to suit, not a waiver of sovereign immunity, and a county does not waive immunity by withholding contract payments under liquidated damages clauses.
Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc.
The economic loss rule bars post-contractual fraud claims when the alleged fraud arises from duties implicated by a party's performance of contractual terms, even where the fraud is intentional.
Robert Lilley, Cross-Appellee v. Btm Corporation, Cross-Appellant
Lilley was properly determined to be an employee under the ADEA and Elliott-Larsen Act, and the court affirmed his retaliatory discharge claim but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest and remanded for recomputation of costs.
County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc.
An express written contract bars quasi-contractual claims for unjust enrichment when the contract addresses the subject matter of the claim.