Case law

Reed v. Rhodes

472 F. Supp. 603 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 14, 1979

For the reasons articulated below, the development of the code is clearly a “planning” function which has not been stayed. … The stay order did not immunize their *611 desegregation activities from the scrutiny and review of this Court.

Hupp

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 26, 2026

Accordingly, Plaintiff is not required to establish a prima facie case in his complaint but rather must state sufficient facts to establish that he 1) had a disability; (2) was “qualified to perform” the job’s “requirements … Plaintiff very clearly has set forth sufficient facts to establish that he has a disability.

Smith v. Petkovich

562 F. Supp. 2d 912 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 12, 2008

Smith’s independent nine-year sentence is contrary to clearly established federal law and he is entitled to habeas relief on the merits. … Respondent replies that Smith’s sentencing did not violate clearly established Supreme Court holdings.

Horen v. Board of Education of Toledo Public School District

948 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 31, 2013

In addition, he claims that EduCare was, for various reasons, not qualified to serve as a proper placement for DH. … Aside from the fact that plaintiff bases his contentions as to these issues on speculation and an insubstantial inferential chain, while defendants have clearly established facts on theirs, plaintiff cannot prevail as to

In re Biozoom, Inc. Securities Litigation

93 F. Supp. 3d 801 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 26, 2015

the accuracy of these reports, perhaps by providing the other sources they mentioned at oral argument, 117 whether Biozoom was offered on the Bulletin Board in 2009 is not so clearly undisputed as to permit judicial notice … Although Defendants are correct that this provision allows an exception for liability for "any act *826 done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any rule or regulation of the Commission,” by its own terms this immunity

City of Toledo v. Beazer Materials & Services, Inc.

923 F. Supp. 1001 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 22, 1996

Such an investigation is, therefore, clearly consistent with the NCP, and it falls under the rubric of “necessary costs.” … In fact the statute clearly contemplates the use of information gathered as part of a “response” to be used for enforcement purposes.

Beiersdorfer v. LaRose

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 30, 2020

Coover, 70 N.E.3d at 591 (noting that by “forcing one to ‘look to sources outside the proposed charter[] to determine the form of government they purport[ed] to establish. . . … As Defendants have not waived their sovereign immunity, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ separation of powers claim.

Yaacov v. Mohr

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2022

The State Defendants further contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s damages claims and that monetary damages claims against them in their individual capacities are not cognizable under RLUIPA … Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the State Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Salerno v. Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 2025

Family Heritage’s next argument raises the affirmative defense of qualified privilege. … Family Heritage has not met its burden to establish qualified privilege. Thus, Family Heritage’s motion for summary judgment on Count Five (defamation) is denied. IV.

Winning v. Commissioner of Social Security

661 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2009

A claimant is not clearly entitled to benefits unless “the proof of disability is overwhelming or ... the proof of disability is strong and evidence to the contrary is lacking.” Id. … She had difficulty thinking clearly to resolve problems].” (Doc. 20 at 24 (citing Tr. 148-50)). 17 .

Carley v. Hudson

563 F. Supp. 2d 760 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 30, 2008

Clearly established federal law can be determined only by examining the holdings of the United States Supreme Court, as opposed to dicta. Williams v. … However, an explicit statement by the Supreme Court is not required; rather, “the legal principles and standards flowing from [Supreme Court] precedent” also qualify as “clearly established law.” Ruimveld v.

Wilson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 10, 2020

First he states, without explanation, that the Defendants deprived him of rights, privileges and immunities. … Plaintiff must also establish a subjective element showing the prison officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Id.

National Air Traffic Controllers Ass'n v. Secretary of the Department of Transportation

997 F. Supp. 874 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 2, 1998

In addition, the conferees direct the Secretary to make every effort to *879 extend this program to those low activity air traffic control towers that remain closed, or to new towers determined by the Secretary to qualify … Thus, the Act clearly does not mandate that the FAA privatize FAA-operated Level 1 air traffic control towers. Because the statute is not ambiguous, the Court need not defer to the FAA’s interpretation of the 1982 Act.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security

193 F. Supp. 3d 836 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 15, 2016

Warren qualify as treating physicians. … We do not decide the question of whether a de minimis violation may qualify as harmless error.

Export-Import Bank v. Advanced Polymer Sciences, Inc.

624 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 11, 2009

As such, the Keehans have failed to demonstrate that this situation is outside the general rale that the United States is immune from the defense of laches. … The language of the arbitration provision clearly demonstrates that the right to demand arbitration is permissive, not mandatory. (Compl. Ex. 3 & 4).

Hudson v. City of Cleveland Heights, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 30, 2021

Courts are not required, however, to accept as true factual allegations that are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. … Here, Hudson does not indicate that he is challenging a specific established state procedure.

Van Le v. Beightler

699 F. Supp. 2d 929 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 14, 2009

However, an explicit statement by the Supreme Court is not mandatory; rather, “the legal principles and standards flowing from [Supreme Court] precedent” also qualify as “clearly established law.” … Therefore, when imposing a consecutive sentence, neither judicial factfinding nor the lack of such findings, violate clearly established federal law.

Barrett v. Barrett

91 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 3, 1950

On September 24, 1942, the wife leased from the Union Trust Company of New Castle, Pennsylvania, a safety deposit box in her name with right of access thereto in the husband upon qualifying by signing the contract, which, … The evidence establishes a gift of .the entire interest in these bonds to the defendant. • *250 The $300 in the strong box in the home was the property of the plaintiff.

United States v. Petrelli

704 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 30, 1986

The terms of 26 U.S.C. § 7408 clearly set forth the requirements for injunctive relief for a violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 6700 and 6701. … The defendants have thus clearly engaged in conduct which is subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6700 and 6701.

Waldorf v. The New York

28 F. Cas. 1360 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 1, 1862

It is conceded that these important facts were fully established by the proofs made upon the hearing .of the cause. … We are clearly of the opinion that the propeller was in fault, and that, consequently, she must be held liable for the damages sustained by the owners pf the schooner.