Opinion ID: 2976494
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: The denial of summary judgment is reviewable after a trial on the merits where the question is purely a question of law. Paschal v. Flagstar Bank, 295 F.3d 565, 572 (6th Cir. 2002); McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995 (6th Cir. 1997). Where the denial of summary judgment is based on a question of law, this Court reviews the decision de novo. McMullen v. Meijer, Inc., 355 F.3d 485, 489 (6th Cir. 2004). The allocation of the burden of proof is generally a question of law. Fuji Kogyo Co. v. Pacific Bay Int’l, 461 F.3d 675, 681 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting First Tenn. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Barreto, 268 F.3d 319, 326 (6th Cir. 2001)). When the question is whether a presumption has been rebutted, factual issues are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Walton, 909 F.2d 915, 919 (6th Cir. 1990). Mere general denials, however, are considered questions of law and therefore reviewed de novo. Williams v. United States, 46 F.3d 1132, 1995 WL 21431,  (6th Cir. Jan. 19, 1995) No. 064607 United States of America v. David L. Hammon, Sr. Page 4 (unpublished) (“Where a mere general denial of correctness is offered, without supporting documentary evidence, the finding of failure to rebut is one made as a matter of law, and thus, can be reviewed de novo.”). A district court’s application of judicial estoppel is reviewed de novo. Browning v. Levy, 283 F.3d 761, 775 (6th Cir. 2002). Because “‘[p]lea agreements are contractual in nature’” and the interpretation of contracts are questions of law, “a district court’s construction of a plea agreement presents a question of law which this [C]ourt reviews de novo.” United States v. Fitch, 282 F.3d 364, 366 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Robison, 924 F.2d 612, 613 (6th Cir. 1991)).