Mahar v. City of Livonia, 64 F.3d 663 (6th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Mahar v. City of Livonia, 64 F.3d 663 (6th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
73 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Human Housing Henrietta Hyatt, LLC (ca6, 2025-01-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In re Human Housing Henrietta Hyatt, LLC
6th Cir. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Christian, 64 F.3d 663 , 1995 WL 496644 at *1 (6th Cir. 1995) (Issues not raised and fully developed before the trial court are waived on appeal.).
discussed Cited "see" Lim v. Miller Parking Co.
E.D. Mich. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Muglia v. Kaumagraph Corp., 64 F.3d 663 , 1995 WL 492933 *4 (6th Cir.1995) (table) (noting that “it appears that a Michigan court sitting in diversity should apply Michigan law in this case regardless of whether the claim is a tort claim or a claim arising in equity”) (citing Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §§ 6, 145).
discussed Cited "see" Lim v. Miller Parking Co.
E.D. Mich. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Muglia v. Kaumagraph Corp., 64 F.3d 663 , 1995 WL 492933 *4 (6th Cir.1995) (table) (noting that “it appears that a Michigan court sitting in diversity should apply Michigan law in this case regardless of whether the claim is a tort claim or a claim arising in equity”) (citing Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §§ 6, 145).
cited Cited "see" In Re Gary Louis Gardner, Debtor. Jeffrey D. Stamper, of the Estate of Gary Louis Gardner v. United States
6th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Sumpter, 64 F.3d 663 , 1995 WL 501947 at *3 (6th Cir. Aug.22, 1995) (unpublished) (noting that the “unambiguous language of the statute” encompasses attempts to thwart taxes).
cited Cited "see" Mulbarger v. Royal Alliance Associates, Inc.
6th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Muglia v. Kaumagraph Corp., 64 F.3d 663 , 1995 WL 492933 , at *3 (6th Cir. 1995).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jenkins v. Dahlby
N.D. Ohio · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ohio Nov. 22, 2019) (citing cases); see also Peeples v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 64 F.3d 663 (6th Cir. 1995) (table) (affirming the dismissal of a suit against ODRC because “a state is not a ‘person’ subject to suit under § 1983”); Mason v. Eddy, No. 1:18-cv-2968, 2019 U.S. Dist.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. v. Furstenau, Jr.
E.D. Mich. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Mich. 2011); see also Muglia v. Kaumagraph Corp., 64 F.3d 663 , 1995 WL 492933 , at *5 (6th Cir. 1995) (table) (“Except for certain per se fiduciary relationships ... fiduciary relationships arise from the facts and circumstances surrounding the relationship between the parties.”). “[T]he inquiry as to whether a fiduciary relationship exists is fact-specific” Ajuba Int'l, L.L.C. v. Saharia, 871 F.Supp.2d 671, 688 (E.D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Quicken Loans Inc.
E.D. Mich. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
Mich. 2011); see also Muglia v. Kaumagraph Corp., 64 F.3d 663 , 1995 WL 492933 , at *5 (6th Cir. 1995) (table) (“Except for certain per se fiduciary relationships ... fiduciary relationships arise from the facts and circumstances surrounding the relationship between the parties.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wally S. Mahar Eddie Stallworth
v.
City of Livonia, a Michigan Municipal Corporation Livonia Inspection Department Livonia Ordinance Enforcement Department Harold A. Pryor, an Ordinance Enforcement Officer William J. MacDonald Supervisor for Ordinance Enforcement Unknown Neighbors, of Mahar Sixteenth District Court, for the City of Livonia George A. Weible, City of Livonia Prosecutor Sixteenth District Court Probation Department George R. Wilands, Chief of Probation James F. Burke, Director of Probation, Thomas L. Collins Rudolph A. Serra, Attorney at Law State Farm Insurance Company Howard Anderson, a State Farm Insurance Agent, Jointly and Severally
93-2458.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Aug 9, 1995.
64 F.3d 663
Unpublished

64 F.3d 663

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Wally S. MAHAR; Eddie Stallworth, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF LIVONIA, a Michigan Municipal Corporation; Livonia
Inspection Department; Livonia Ordinance Enforcement
Department; Harold A. Pryor, an Ordinance Enforcement
Officer; William J. MacDonald, Supervisor for Ordinance
Enforcement; Unknown Neighbors, of Plaintiff Mahar;
Sixteenth District Court, for the City of Livonia; George A.
Weible, City of Livonia Prosecutor; Sixteenth District Court
Probation Department; George R. Wilands, Chief of Probation;
James F. Burke, Director of Probation, Defendants-Appellees,
Thomas L. Collins; Rudolph A. Serra, Attorney at Law; State
Farm Insurance Company; Howard Anderson, a State
Farm Insurance Agent, Jointly and
Severally, Defendants.

No. 93-2458.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 9, 1995.

Before: LIVELY, MARTIN and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Wally S. Mahar and Eddie Stallworth appeal pro se the judgment for defendants in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

2

The complaint in this case alleged that the city of Livonia, Michigan, its departments and employees, neighbors of Mahar and their attorney, a state court, a prosecutor, the probation department and its employees had conspired to harass Mahar because he associated with black people, including Stallworth. The plaintiffs alleged that their rights of association, equal protection, privacy and travel had been violated. The complaint also alleged that the defendant insurance company and its agent had refused to issue a policy of automobile insurance to Stallworth on the basis of his race.

3

The district court entered an order to show cause why the claim against the latter two defendants should not be dismissed for misjoinder of claims and parties. Plaintiffs failed to respond, and the claim against these defendants was dismissed. Defendant Collins, Mahar's neighbor, and defendant Serra, the neighbor's attorney, moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claim against them was precluded due to a number of previous state court actions arising out of the same facts. The district court granted this motion. The remainder of the defendants also moved for summary judgment on various grounds, including immunity from suit and failure to state a claim of malicious prosecution. See Coogan v. City of Wixom, 820 F.2d 170, 172 (6th Cir. 1987). The district court also granted this motion.

4

Upon review, we affirm the judgment for defendants for the reasons stated by the district court. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.