Case law

Hartman v. Bagley

333 F. Supp. 2d 632 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 31, 2004

“Instead, the correct inquiry is ‘whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.’” Id. … In reviewing this finding, the Court determines whether the Ohio Supreme Court’s “application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.” Williams v.

Presser v. Brennan

389 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 27, 1975

It is plain that per diem fees, absent any assurance of the number of fees or the amount of fees, do not qualify as an expectancy of employment. … Congress clearly intended that corporations and partnerships could continue to serve on a pension fund until the Board of Parole determined that such service would be inconsistent with the intention of this section.

Leonard v. Bedrock Management Services LLC

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 15, 2021

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. … To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title II, Plaintiff must allege facts suggesting that he (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) attempted to exercise the right to full benefits and enjoyment

Cornelius v. City of Parma

374 F. Supp. 730 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 22, 1974

The white plaintiffs do not allege that they were even residents of Parma at the time this project was blocked. 14 Clearly, however, if they were Parma residents at that time, it could well be contended that the blocking … This decision was based on what it considered to be the intensity of citizen opposition to the project and the likelihood that expensive and time-consuming litigation would be necessary to establish its right to build the

Zivkovic v. Juniper Networks, Inc.

450 F. Supp. 2d 815 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 7, 2006

employment action; (3) he was otherwise qualified for the position; and (4) after he was rejected, a substantially younger applicant was selected.” … Having failed to establish direct evidence, plaintiff must establish his case through circumstantial evidence.

Wuliger v. Owens

365 F. Supp. 2d 838 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 18, 2005

Since this litigation was not commenced until May 2003, it is clearly outside the one year statute under the applicable statutes of limitations. b. … "Although receivers may be shielded by principles of immunity, that does not convert their claims into public actions for purposes of securities laws.

West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. Rae Arc Industries, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 16, 2021

If the employee’s vehicle qualified as a “temporary substitute vehicle,” the exclusion would no longer apply, and the employee would qualify as “an insured.” /d. at *3. … Therefore, the employee did not qualify as an insured, and the employee-owned vehicle exclusion was applicable. Jd.

Austin v. Morgan

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 2, 2024

But he points to no decision of the Supreme Court clearly establishing that an inability to cross-examine affects the analysis such that a failure to analyze the matter appropriately in the State courts entitles him to … Nothing in the record overcomes this presumption or shows that the State courts applied the Strickland standard unreasonably or contrary to clearly established law.

Glaser v. Smith

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 16, 2023

Glaser has clearly failed to allege sufficient facts suggesting a plausible failure to intervene claim against CoreCivic. … Even assuming Warden Bobby qualifies as a final decision maker, as discussed above, Glaser does not allege that Warden Bobby played any role in the Incident.

Culver v. Job and Family Services

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 17, 2020

A claim when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the Complaint.” … 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

Mathis v. Black

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 21, 2024

Factual Background The following is a brief summary of the facts established at the Petitioner’s trial. … The Magistrate Judge also found fatal to Mathis’s third claim the absence of clearly established Supreme Court precedent holding that an error of state law regarding the admissibility of evidence constituted a cognizable

Pennell

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

To establish the prima facie case for an ADA discrimination claim, the plaintiff “‘must show that (1) [he] is actually disabled or regarded as having a disability; (2) [he] is otherwise qualified for the position, with … As Pennell notes, “[t]o establish a prima facie claim for failure to accommodate, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] was disabled within the meaning of the the statute, (2) [he] was otherwise qualified for h[is] position

Bradley v. United States of America

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2019

Plaintiff alleges he has been diagnosed with PTSD, which is one of the conditions in Ohio qualifying for treatment with medical marijuana, and that he is eligible to register for Ohio’s medical marijuana program. … The party invoking federal subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of establishing all the requirements necessary to establish standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (citations omitted).

Behm v. Mehaljevic

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2024

A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … To establish a prima facie case under Section 1983, Plaintiff must assert that a person acting under color of state law deprived her of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

Gay v. Extended Family Concepts

102 F. Supp. 2d 449 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 27, 2000

Oregon Senior Services Div., 894 F.2d 1107 , 1109 (9th Cir.1990) (“Congress clearly recognized that companions would be an exempt sub-category of domestic service workers.”); Linn v. … [workers] must qualify as ‘domestic service employees.’”); Lott v. Rigby, 746 F.Supp. 1084, 1086 (N.D.Ga.1990) (“The ‘companionship services’ exemption to FLSA applies only to ‘domestic service employment.’ ”).

Lorens v. Catholic Health Care Partners

356 F. Supp. 2d 828 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 13, 2005

This well-established presumption is grounded in the elementary proposition that the principal function of a legislature is not to make contracts, but to make laws that establish the policy of the state. Id. … Rather, it permits the IRS to sue tax-exempt organizations that may no longer qualify for tax exemption. 26 U.S.C. § 7428 .

Roberts v. Mahoning County

495 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 17, 2007

. § 3626 (a)(3)(E), has been established. AGREEMENT TO MEDIATE DIFFERENCES 27. … The County reserves the right to deny any Provider’s employee access to the facility and/or require the termination of medical service employees who do not meet established clearances or obey established rules and regulations

Canepa

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2026

lump [her] into” the group of Defendants referred to in the Complaint as Defendant Prosecuting Attorneys, “despite [her] clearly not qualifying definitionally.” … Moreover, it is not clear why Connell believes she does not qualify for the group denominated as Defendant Prosecuting Attorneys.

Washington v. Lenzy Family Institute, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 22, 2022

Termination of benefits is not listed as a “qualifying event” in 29 U.S.C. § 1163. And the complaint clearly states that Lenzy terminated Plaintiff after the Second UHC Policy was canceled. (Doc. … Plaintiff then cites various caselaw standing for the proposition that such failure can establish a viable ERISA fiduciary breach claim. (See Doc. No. 24-2 at PageID 975-981.)

Mutual Film Co. v. Industrial Commission

215 F. 138 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 2, 1914

It does not matter that the subject in the main is harmless; it does matter, however, if something is associated with it that is harmful; and it is only when it clearly appears that the enactment has no real or substantial … Thus decisions which establish the right simply to punish—such, for instance, as People v. Most, 171 N. Y. 423 , 64 N. E. 175 , 58 L. R. A. 509, or Tyomies Pub. Co. v. U.