Dickerson v. Mcclellan, 37 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Dickerson v. Mcclellan, 37 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Howlett v. Warren, City of (mied, 2020-08-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Howlett v. Warren, City of
E.D. Mich. · 2020 · confidence medium
Mich. Nov. 3, 2009), citing Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernd Schaefers
Bankr. C.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Sperow v. Melvin, 153 F.3d 780, 781 (7th Cir. 1998); 7 Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir. 1994); Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc. v. 8 Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 895 F.2d 711, 713 (11th Cir. 1990); Camby v. Davis, 9 718 F.2d 198 , 200 n.2 (4th Cir. 1983); United States v. Gov't of Guam, 2009 U.S. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lance McNeal v. Gary Kott (2×)
6th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
But see Adams v. Yontz, Nos. 94-3767/94-3770, 1996 WL 5563 , at *3 (6th Cir. Jan. 5, 1996); Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir.1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gomez-Gomez
6th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
ANALYSIS A. Interlocutory Appeal A court of appeals “must determine its own jurisdiction and is bound to do so in every instance.” Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carson v. United States Office of Special Counsel
6th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
CARSON’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in General A court of appeals “must determine its own jurisdiction and is bound to do so in every instance.” Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Innovative Communication Corp.
D.V.I. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Sperow v. Melvin, 153 F.3d 780, 781 (7th Cir. 1998); Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir. 1994); Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 895 F.2d 711, 713 (11th Cir. 1990); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 , 200 n.2 (4th Cir. 1983); United States v. Real Property Located at 886 North Hamilton St.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Patel v. Wooten
10th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir.1994); see also Sperow v. Melvin, 153 F.3d 780, 781 (7th Cir.1998) (“A district court cannot dismiss an appeal.”); Liles v. S.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. One Parcel of Land, Parcela 22
1st Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hyche v. Christensen, 170 F.3d 769, 770 (7th Cir.1999), overruled on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1027 (7th Cir.2000); Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir.1994); 20 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 303.32[2][a][i] (3d ed.1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Brown
6th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
See Marrese v. American Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 , 105 S.Ct. 1327 , 84 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985); Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir.1994) (order).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Earl D. Sperow v. Francis Melvin
7th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
A district court cannot dismiss an appeal, Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir.1994) (per curiam); Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 895 F.2d 711, 713 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 , 199 n. 2 (4th Cir.1983), and it follows that it cannot condition an appeal on the appellant’s prosecuting it vigorously in the court of appeals.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mayes Trucking Company, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
6th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 740 (1976); Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir.1994) (order).
discussed Cited "see" Linda Horton, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Barney Horton, Jr. v. General Electric Company, et al.
W.D. Ky. · 2025 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251 , 252 (6th Cir.1994) (citing Yates and observing that “this court has suggested in the past that a district court may have jurisdiction to certify an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity as frivolous”). 6 Express Scripts, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. California, 25-327 (U.S. Sep. 18, 2025) (docketing petition for certiorari).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Real Property Located at 886 North Hamilton
7th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir. 1994); Hogg v. United States, 411 F.2d 578, 580 (6th Cir.1969).
discussed Cited "see" Dickerson ex rel. Stephens v. McClellan
6th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dickerson v. McClellan, 844 F.Supp. 391 (M.D.Tenn.1994), vacated in part, 37 F.3d 251 (6th Cir.1994) (vacating district court’s decision insofar as it “purports to dismiss the defendants’ appeal”).
discussed Cited "see" Dickerson v. Mcclellan
6th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dickerson v. McClellan, 844 F.Supp. 391 (M.D.Tenn.1994), vacated in part, 37 F.3d 251 (6th Cir.1994) (vacating district court's decision insofar as it "purports to dismiss the defendants' appeal").
cited Cited "see" Hedges v. Stumbo
6th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir.1994) (order).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Blackwell
N.D. Ohio · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
In addition, because plaintiffs, at defendants’ request, had corrected any technical defect with respect to their desired relief months earlier and defendants’ motion simply reframed into sovereign immunity language their earlier arguments concerning the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, I certified the motion as without merit and stated that “this court will retain jurisdiction during the pendency of any appeal of this order.” (Doc. 237, p. 9); see also Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251 , 252 (6th Cir.1994); Blair v. City of Cleveland, 148 F.Supp.2d 919, 922 (N.D.O…
cited Cited "see, e.g." League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Blackwell
N.D. Ohio · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Yates, 941 F.2d at 448 -49 (citing Apostol, 870 F.2d at 1339 ); see also Dickerson v. McClellan, 37 F.3d 251, 252 (6th Cir.1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chad Timothy Dickerson Deon Denay Dickerson, a Minor, by Her Mother & Legal Guardian Sharon Dale Stephens
v.
Cory D. McClellan Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Officer for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee Charles L. (Lonnie) Stevens, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Officer for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
94-5206.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Oct 14, 1994.
37 F.3d 251
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

37 F.3d 251

Chad Timothy DICKERSON; Deon Denay Dickerson, a minor, by
her mother & legal guardian; Sharon Dale
Stephens, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Cory D. McCLELLAN, individually and in his official capacity
as police officer for the Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee; Charles L.
(Lonnie) Stevens, individually and in his official capacity
as police officer for the Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, Defendants-Appellants,
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,
Tennessee, Defendant.

No. 94-5206.

United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 14, 1994.

Jeffrey Zager and Thomas H. Peebles, Trabue, Sturdivant & DeWitt, Nashville, TN, for plaintiffs-appellees.

James L. Charles and E. Joseph Fitzpatrick, Jr., the Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County Dept. of Law, Nashville, TN, for defendants-appellants.

Before CONTIE, MILBURN, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

The two individual defendants appeal the district court's denial of qualified immunity in this civil rights action. Now before the court is a motion by the defendants seeking 1) to supplement the appellate record with the evidence produced at trial, and 2) to reverse the district court's order certifying the appeal as frivolous and to decide this appeal prior to any trial. We have addressed these requests separately in an order filed contemporaneously. However, we write here specifically to address an issue as to our appellate jurisdiction.

2

After the defendant officers had perfected their appeal, the plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the appeal as frivolous and to proceed with the trial. The district court issued an opinion in which it certified the appeal as frivolous. Dickerson v. McClellan, 844 F.Supp. 391 (M.D.Tenn.1994). Therein, the district court directed the defendants' notice of appeal to be dismissed. Id. at 397. In so doing, the district court exceeded its authority, and this attempted "dismissal" in no way affects our jurisdiction in this appeal.

3

The denial of a motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity is an appealable order. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 522, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2813, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Although this court has suggested in the past that a district court may have jurisdiction to certify an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity as frivolous, see e.g. Yates v. City of Cleveland, 941 F.2d 444 (6th Cir.1991), we find no authority that would permit a district court to dismiss a notice of appeal from such an order. In fact, the district courts have a ministerial duty to forward to the proper court of appeals any notice of appeal which is filed. See Rule 3(d), Fed.R.App.P. A proper notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction and transfers jurisdiction to the court of appeals. Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392, 394 (6th Cir.1993). This court must determine its own jurisdiction and is bound to do so in every instance. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 740, 96 S.Ct. 1202, 1204-05, 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1976). It follows that the decision to dismiss a notice of appeal rests with this court, not the district court.

4

Therefore, insofar as the district court's decision purports to dismiss the defendants' appeal, it is hereby VACATED. This appeal shall continue upon the court's docket.