Case law

Gordon v. Van Schoyck

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 25, 2020

McGrath, Judge Jennifer Brunner, Judge Julia Dorrian, and Judge William Klatt filed a motion to dismiss on various grounds including judicial immunity and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. (Doc. No. 53). … Even so, Gordon’s First Amendment retaliation claim must fail because he cannot establish the second element.

Day v. Chambers-Smith

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 4, 2021

It is well-established that relief in a civil rights action is not available where a prisoner seeks immediate or speedier release from his incarceration. … Here, the ODRC is clearly a state agency and entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Defendant, as Director of the ODRC, is therefore also entitled to immunity.

Mason v. Mitchell

396 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 2005

While Strickland established that strategic decisions can be virtually unchallengeable, the Wiggins Court emphasized that these decisions are not immune from attack if they are founded upon an unreasonable investigation. … This Court finds the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of or clearly contrary to any United States Supreme Court precedent.

Cooey v. Bradshaw

216 F.R.D. 408 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2003

As grounds, petitioner asserted, among other things, that he was denied his statutory right to competent, qualified counsel in his habeas proceedings. … The appointment of qualified counsel also serves to give the public confidence that capital punishment is meted out fairly.

Reed v. Rhodes

516 F. Supp. 561 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 10, 1981

His position is clearly different from that of a private litigant who must bear the risks of litigation. See, United States’ Response, p. 3. … To deny the Master adequate compensation for defending his fees award would jeopardize the Court’s ability to retain qualified and competent professionals to serve as Masters.

Spring v. Montefiore Home

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 14, 2022

The PREP Act, by and large, is an immunity statute. … The only exception to the PREP Act’s immunity is willful misconduct claims. 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(d)(1) (“[T]he sole exception to the immunity from suit and liability of covered persons set forth in subsection (a) shall

Hackett v. Xerox Corp. Long-Term Disability Income Plan

177 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 13, 2001

As of March 2, 1987, Hackett qualified for, and began receiving long-term disability benefits from Xerox. … As stated previously the terms of ERISA plans sometimes "must be inferred from a series of documents none clearly labeled as `the plan.'"

Akron Center for Reproductive Health v. Rosen

110 F.R.D. 576 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 9, 1986

Finally, the pretrial orders clearly stated that the named plaintiffs would seek to prove class discrimination and the trial itself proceeded on that basis. … At the hearing before the Court on April 21,1986, counsel for Rosen clearly stated that Rosen opposed acting as class representative.

Perri v. Jividen

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 2025

These claims are clearly time-barred. See Fraley v. Ohio Gallia County, No. 97-3564, 1998 WL 789385, at *1 (6th Cir. … To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must assert that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

Vonnegut Machinery Co. v. Toledo Machine & Tool Co.

263 F. 192 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 1920

Without accepting as established the extreme characterization of the conduct of pickets found in the testimony, we find that proof enough of its objectionable character is in the record to indicate clearly the wisdom of a … A law giving special immunities to a class necessarily impinges upon the rights of those against whom the statutory discriminations operate.

Phillips v. Teamsters Local 639 Employers Health & Pension Trust

79 F. Supp. 2d 847 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 4, 2000

It allows qualified employees to receive a partial pension from the funds to which they contributed. The Central States Fund agreed to the Reciprocal Agreement effective January 1, 1965. … The United States Supreme Court has held that de novo review applies in cases where the benefit plan fails, on its face, to clearly give the administrator discretionary authority to decide eligibility for benefits or to construe

In Re Grand Juror Webb

586 F. Supp. 1480 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 24, 1984

Clearly this is what we have here. … Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1875 must be strictly enforced, and no employer can be immune from its strict requirements.

Steigerwald ex rel. Class v. Berryhill

357 F. Supp. 3d 653 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 25, 2019

This response clearly admits that an underpayment is "due" (i.e., owed) to Category I Plaintiffs. Defendant does not dispute that federal law requires it perform the Subtraction Recalculation. … But this is also true where a Plaintiff establishes their legal right to receive disability benefits in the first place.

Harris v. City of Cleveland

190 F.R.D. 215 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 26, 1999

Such suits are barred by sovereign immunity unless the Government explicitly waives it. See United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980) (quoting United States v. … As has been clearly established, personal service is the only method of service where the named defendants are federal officials being sued in their individual capacities. .

League of Women Voters v. Blackwell

340 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 20, 2004

HAVA § 302(a) A voter who declares that he or she is a qualified elector of the precinct and is eligible to vote in the election, but whose name does not appear on the poll list in an election for federal office, will be … It is clearly established that the Supremacy Clause grants the federal courts jurisdiction over such claims; conflict with a federal law raises a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . In Verizon Md., Inc. v.

Bryan v. Bobby

114 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 16, 2015

The Ohio courts violated Bryan’s liberty interest in having the jury death — qualified under the test established in Witherspoon v. … For that reason, the state court’s decision was not “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

United States v. City of Toledo

867 F. Supp. 598 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 1994

The NPDES permits also require self-monitoring and periodic Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), which, under the system established in this case, were known as Monthly Operating Reports (MORs). … In light of that express term, the plaintiff clearly could make its computations as it did. Second, this is not a dispute of fact; it is a disagreement that is amenable to a ruling of law.

U. S. Truck Sales Co. v. United States

129 F. Supp. 141 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 1955

On the other hand, one who imports the trucks and sells them clearly must fall within the classification of an importer. … The regulation required that to qualify for the exemption the manufacturer must have had definite- knowledge, prior to, or at the time of the sale that the article was to be used, for the exclusive use of the United States

Stallings v. Bagley

561 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2008

While Strickland established that strategic decisions generally are not subject to challenge, therefore, the Wiggins Court emphasized that these decisions are not immune from attack if they are founded upon an unreasonable … and interpreted the relevant Supreme Court case law to determine whether a legal principle or right had been clearly established by the Supreme Court.”

Ross v. Merlak

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 15, 2019

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept his allegations as true unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). … The Plaintiff’s Complaint does not set forth discernible allegations of misconduct on the part of the Warden himself, and it is well established that supervisory liability cannot be established under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or