Case law

Burgess

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 6, 2026

GCRTA argues that “[s]he must establish, as she has pled, that GCRTA misapplied its discipline policy” and “she must establish that she challenged the misapplication of the CBA using the CBA’s mandatory grievance and arbitration … GCRTA argues that “the ADA does not provide disabled employees immunity from lawful workplace discipline.” (Doc. No. 28, PageID #1024.)

Whitman v. Gray

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 8, 2020

If necessary for effective discovery, the judge must appoint an attorney for a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. … He has not explained how this discovery will show that a state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.

Goins

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 6, 2026

Additionally, Defendants maintain that Corporal Winkel has qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of Mr. Goins. (Id., PageID #959–62.) … “Conclusory statements unadorned with supporting facts are insufficient to establish a factual dispute that will defeat summary judgment.” Id. (quoting Alexander v.

Neal v. Metro Regional Transit Authority

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 8, 2019

purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly … To establish a claim under Title II or the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is disabled under the statute; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the program, services, or activities of the public entity

White v. Smith & Wesson Corp.

97 F. Supp. 2d 816 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 2000

Regarding the claims arising under the Ohio Product Liability Act, Plaintiffs’ claims are clearly within the zone of interests of the statute. … Plaintiffs argue that the nuisance at hand is a qualified nuisance, as opposed to an absolute nuisance.

Austin v. Wilkinson

189 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 25, 2002

The ceiling height of the recreation rooms do not meet the American Correctional Association’s established standard. … July 6, 1989) (stating that Hewitt “clearly established” that a prisoner has a due process right not to be confined in administrative segregation as a pretext for indefinite confinement); Riley v.

CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. New GIFL, Inc.

823 F. Supp. 479 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 8, 1993

The court believes it is well established that Ohio has long taken a dim view of contractual attorney’s fees provisions. See Sekeres v. … In Worth , the Ohio Supreme Court held that an indemnitor’s express agreement to indemnify an indemnitee for qualified legal expenses incurred is enforceable and is not contrary to Ohio's public policy. 7 .

Carr v. Board of Trustees of the University of Akron

465 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 8, 1979

He clearly recognized and acknowledged that his publications were insufficient, and that he needed to publish more. … Nor can the Court conclude that such were not clearly defined.

Brown v. Owens Corning Investment Review Committee

541 F. Supp. 2d 958 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2008

Fidelity argues it was a directed trustee acting subject to the direction of an OC entity that qualifies as a named fiduciary and thus cannot be held liable for ordinary breach of fiduciary duty. … Furthermore, the provisions of the Master Trust do not clearly establish the Sponsor as having the powers of a named fiduciary and, significantly, do not “enable employees ... to ascertain who is responsible for operating

Monode Marking Products, Inc. v. Columbia Marking Tools, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 27, 2019

“Structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as ‘corresponding structure’ if the intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. Id. (citing B. … Habedank is not qualified to render opinion testimony in this case as one of ordinary skill in the art; and, asserts that Mr.

Robinson v. Cuyahoga County

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 8, 2022

First, Plaintiff must establish that (1) he has a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified; and (3) he was being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under the program … According to Plaintiff, Cuyahoga County was clearly aware of his disability and provided various medical services to him until he began exhibiting aggressive behavior.

Pettrey v. Enterprise Title Agency, Inc.

241 F.R.D. 268 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 19, 2006

Plaintiffs’ Complaint clearly focuses on the bona fide services provider or sham ABA theory. … Plaintiffs point to HUD regulations but fail to explain how these qualify under Section 1345.09(B).

United States v. Davidoff

46 F. Supp. 3d 744 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 3, 2014

The Court has doubts regarding Sergeant Timberlake’s ability to clearly see whether Defendant actually swerved into the left lane. … The regulation has an exemption for “unforeseen circumstances such as illness, emergency employment situation, or other valid reasons.” 52 To qualify under this exemption, the agency employing the canine unit must have submitted

Boyd v. Zepf Center

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2020

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Boyd must show: (1) [ ]she is disabled; (2) [she was] otherwise qualified for the position, with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) [she] suffered … Otherwise Qualified “An employee is deemed qualified only if she can perform all of the essential functions of her job, whether accommodated or not.” Williams v.

Dickerson v. Mitchell

336 F. Supp. 2d 770 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 2004

Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), to help guide *786 federal courts as to what qualifies as “clearly established Federal law.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 412 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 . … The Court stated “[w]hatever would qualify as an ‘old rule’ under Teague will constitute ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by [this] Court.’” Id.

Brooks v. City of Cleveland

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

Instead, the court in Moore simply happened to analyze officer immunity on an individual basis. … Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010), in which the plaintiff clearly established requisite blameworthiness by alleging how officer defendants (1) “failed to disclose key items of evidence,” and (2) “made false statements

Crane Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

577 F. Supp. 186 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 28, 1983

I would like to qualify that, however. My experiences are with people graduating from universities at the Bachelor’s level; also other levels, but the Bachelor’s level. … If I can assume that people who have worked in the field of automatic control have learned more, then clearly they are skilled.

Moore v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc.

337 F. Supp. 2d 1002 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 18, 2004

To market a Class III device within the United States, “the manufacturer must either submit its product to the FDA for premarket approval (TMA process’), or qualify for one of two exceptions to this time-intensive regulatory … Courts that have considered this issue have stated clearly and uniformly that, “[w]hen analyz-ing questions of federal law, the [MDL] transferee court should apply the law of the circuit in which it is located.”

Alexander v. Youngstown Board of Education

454 F. Supp. 985 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 12, 1978

Therefore, this reassignment was clearly integrative. … As previously indicated, the Youngstown defendants have had serious difficulties in securing qualified black teachers.

Rose v. University Hospitals

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 14, 2020

workers compensation law requirements and must pay workers compensation benefits for covered injuries.45 Ohio law grants Workers’-Compensation-compliant employers immunity … A reasonable jury could not find that Plaintiff established an invasion of privacy claim.