Eubanks v. Stengel

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: July 31, 2000
• Docket: 98-6671
• Status: Published

Opinion

5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//7(;7 38%/,&$7,21 3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUFXLW 5XOH 

(/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )(' $SS 3 WK &LU )LOH 1DPH DS

81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6 )257+(6,;7+&,5&8,7 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

6$08(/ * (8%$1.6 0' ; HWDO  3ODLQWLIIV$SSHOOHHV   1R  Y !   5 '$9,' 67(1*(/  &RPPRQZHDOWK$WWRUQH\IRU  sHIIHUVRQ&RXQW\HWDO  'HIHQGDQWV    $ % &+$1'/(5 ,,,  $WWRUQH\*HQHUDORIWKH  &RPPRQZHDOWKRI.HQWXFN\  LQKLVRIILFLDOFDSDFLW\DQGKLV  VXFFHVVRUVLQRIILFH   'HIHQGDQW$SSHOODQW 1

$SSHDOIURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW IRUWKH:HVWHUQ'LVWULFWRI.HQWXFN\DW/RXLVYLOOH 1RnsRKQ*+H\EXUQ,,'LVWULFWsXGJH $UJXHG'HFHPEHU 'HFLGHGDQG)LOHGsXO\

  (XEDQNVHWDOY6WHQJHOHWDO 1R 1R (XEDQNVHWDOY6WHQJHOHWDO 

%HIRUH*8<DQG&/$<&LUFXLWsXGJHV%(&.:,7+   7KH DSSHDO LQ &DUKDUW LQYROYHG D FKDOOHQJH WR 'LVWULFWsXGJH 1HEUDVNDjVSDUWLDOELUWKDERUWLRQVWDWXWHDQGSUHVHQWHGLVVXHV YHU\ VLPLODU WR WKRVH LQYROYHG LQ WKLV FKDOOHQJH WR WKH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB .HQWXFN\SDUWLDOELUWKDERUWLRQVWDWXWH &2816(/ $IWHU FDUHIXOO\ UHYLHZLQJ WKH GHFLVLRQ LQ &DUKDUW ZH FRQFOXGHWKDWLWLVFRQWUROOLQJLQWKLVFDVHDQGWKDWWKHGLVWULFW $5*8(''%UHQW,UYLQ2)),&(2)7+($77251(< FRXUWZDVFRUUHFWZKHQLWKHOGWKDWWKH.HQWXFN\VWDWXWHLV *(1(5$/ &,9,/ ',9,6,21 )UDQNIRUW .HQWXFN\ IRU XQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO $SSHOODQW  $ 6WHSKHQ +XW sU :,/0(5 &87/(5 3,&.(5,1*:DVKLQJWRQ'&IRU$SSHOOHHV21%5,() $)),50(' '%UHQW,UYLQ2)),&(2)7+($77251(<*(1(5$/ &,9,/ ',9,6,21 )UDQNIRUW .HQWXFN\ IRU $SSHOODQW $6WHSKHQ+XWsU.LPEHUO\$3DUNHU0DWWKHZ33UHYLQ :,/0(5 &87/(5  3,&.(5,1* :DVKLQJWRQ '& &DUULH < )OD[PDQ '(&+(57 35,&(  5+2$'6 3KLODGHOSKLD 3HQQV\OYDQLD (YH & *DUWQHU 3/$11(' 3$5(17+22')('(5$7,212)$0(5,&$,1&1HZ

7KH +RQRUDEOH 6DQGUD 6 %HFNZLWK 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'LVWULFW sXGJH IRU WKH 6RXWKHUQ 'LVWULFW RI 2KLR VLWWLQJ E\ GHVLJQDWLRQ