Case law

Threesome Entertainment v. Strittmather

4 F. Supp. 2d 710 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 27, 1998

The Ordinance is clearly within Vermilion’s police powers. … Cheraso, 43 Ohio App.3d 221 , 540 N.E.2d 326, 329 (1988) (“[i]t is well-established' that when a statute reads, ‘No person shall * * *,’ absent any reference to the requisite culpable mental state, the statute is clearly

Searer v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 30, 2019

The claimant may also qualify by showing that the impairment or combination of impairments is the “medical equivalent” of the listing. Id. … Listings that clearly do not apply need not be addressed. Sheeks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 544 F. App’x 639, 641 (6th Cir. 2013).

Phillips v. Fender

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 9, 2025

established federal law. … The Court finds that the R&R properly determined that the state appeals court did not err when considering the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim and concluding that the clearly established federal two-prong

United States v. Greenhut

51 F. 205 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 11, 1892

These terms, as used in the act of congress under consideration, are well defined at common law, and must be considered with reference to such established meaning. … If these acts are illegal and in restraint of trade, and if they constitute a monopoly under this act, it may well bo denominated an act to restrain legitimate enterprise, and limit and qualify the ownership in property.

Seldon v. Jacobs Industrial Services, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 28, 2020

“To meet this burden, ‘the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons’ for its decision.” Clay v. … The race-related jokes that Seldon overheard clearly qualify as based on race.

M.H. v. Akron City School District Board of Education

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 12, 2019

This opinion work product enjoys nearly absolute immunity. See In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. … These communications do not contain the requisite elements to qualify for attorney-client privilege.

Frazier v. Mitchell

188 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 5, 2001

established federal law. … A federal habeas court may not find a state adjudication to be unreasonable “simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied *815 clearly established federal

Montgomery v. Bagley

482 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2007

established federal law.” … In habeas corpus cases, the inquiry is directed to deciding whether the state court’s determination of the issue was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law.

Lewis v. Horace Mann Insurance

410 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 23, 2005

Cleavenger (assuming she was qualified to opine on the matter asserted)to swear out an affidavit. … The court disagrees that Whitcrafb clearly stands for that proposition.

Holden v. Heckler

584 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 29, 1984

Their ability to “vigorously prosecute” the action through “qualified counsel” is also clear. … But until she prevails in such a case, she must follow the established law.

Leach v. Dewine

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2023

Courts are not required, however, to accept as true factual allegations that are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. … To allege disability discrimination under Title II of the ADA, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the benefit in question; and (3) he was excluded from the benefit due

Stephens v. Ohio State Telephone Co.

240 F. 759 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 14, 1917

As clearly we must hold, also, that that is described “with particularity in the application.” … Broad generalizations, however, are easily framed, because, if we just keep in mind the prevalence in the statute of the qualifying idea of “peaceful” and “lawful” action, we cannot be misled.

Kohli v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone LLP

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 9, 2020

An action has no arguable basis in law when a Defendant is immune from suit or when a Plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … The second criteria to establish standing is causation.

Robins v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC

838 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 18, 2012

In any event, the fact that Perkins is the decision of a federal court sitting in Ohio is insufficient to qualify as an Ohio court decision providing prior notice under the OCSPA. See Kline v. Mortgage Elec. Sec. … The Court also deems Plaintiffs’ failure to address these clearly established tenets in their Surreply their concession to Global’s position on this issue. .

Hope v. Berg

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 7, 2022

Title I is clearly inapplicable here. … Under Title II of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12132), Hope must establish that she has a disability.

Buescher v. Baldwin Wallace University

86 F. Supp. 3d 789 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 2015

(Glaude is not offered as an expert qualified to form an opinion.) … Her deposition testimony establishes that she decided to withdraw from the program. On this basis, she does not establish a breach of contract.

Williams v. Adams

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 20, 2022

Williams also alleges that Judge Adams lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Criminal Case and, therefore, is not absolutely immune from suit. (Id. ¶ 16.) … Williams’ complaint, challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of Judge Adams in the Criminal Case, clearly does not fit within the three specific contexts recognized by the Supreme Court for Bivens actions and this Court

Quilter v. Voinovich

912 F. Supp. 1006 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 11, 1995

This is clearly one of the demeaning and offensive assumptions that the Supreme Court has previously criticized as an impermissible racial stereotype. … Obviously, compliance with the traditional dis-tricting principles in the Ohio Constitution does not qualify as such a compelling interest.

Sengpiel v. B.F. Goodrich Co.

970 F. Supp. 1322 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 30, 1997

Likewise, your assignment to the Uniroyal Goodrich retirement rolls means that current life insurance and medical benefits programs for which you may now qualify will be continued, with the understanding that, as in the past … First, any relief for the plaintiffs would clearly be limited to life insurance and hospitalization benefits.

Koger v. Mohr

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 19, 2019

Finally, Defendants assert they are shielded by qualified immunity. 1. RLUIPA* “Congress enacted RLUIPA . .. in order to provide very broad protection for religious liberty.” Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. … This is clearly discriminatory. . . ECF No. 50-1 at PageID #: 474, 502-03.