Case law

McGuire v. Wainwright

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 10, 2023

To qualify for habeas relief, Petitioner must show that, at trial, there was a ruling “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of” clearly established law as determined by the 2 In fact, Petitioner’s trial counsel … As stated above, Petitioner has not met his burden of showing the trial court either ruled contrary to or misapplied clearly established federal law.

Hopkins v. Bolar

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2023

Ed.2d 349 (2022) establishes his actual innocence. … Here, Petitioner is clearly challenging his conviction in this petition. And it appears that he is attempting to argue that an intervening change in the law, in United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015, 213 L.

Glasstech, Inc. v. CHICAGO BLOWER CORP.

675 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2009

Clearly, Chicago Blower qualifies as a merchant of these quench fans and is bound by the UCC’s implied warranty to supply “merchantable” goods as defined by UCC § 2-314(2)(a)-(e) (R.C. § 1302.27(B)(l)-(3)): namely, fans that … RPM noted that “there was not a question in [Royal Electric] as to whether there was in fact money owed under the explicit terms of that contract, for there clearly was.”

Myers v. Mutual of Omaha Life Insurance

175 F. Supp. 3d 820 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2016

The Policy excludes benefits for otherwise qualifying injuries or illnesses that existed prior to coverage: We will not provide benefits for Disability: (a) Caused by, contributed to by, or resulting from a Pre-existing Condition … M Typically, a court will retroactively award benefits only when a plaintiff has clearly established disability under the Plan. Cooper v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 486 F.3d 157, 171 (6th Cir.2007); Kalish v. Liberty Mut.

Ditto v. Monsanto Co.

867 F. Supp. 585 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 1993

Plaintiff claims that Monsanto cannot qualify as a bulk supplier because it shipped its product in 55 gallon drums which Ditto may have used. … The PCBX system was sealed, and specific instructions for techniques to be followed in the event of contact with the oil were clearly spelled out to SunOhio’s customers. Ditto’s employer was also not a consumer of PCBs.

Li v. University of Akron

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 22, 2023

These facts relating to her own professional responsibilities were clearly known to Dr. Li at the time she was deposed. Dr. … Discharge of a qualified employee within a protected class is not inherently suspicious because it is the nature of a RIF that some “qualified employees are going to be discharged.” Brocklehurst v.

United States v. Willard

211 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 4, 1962

And since the ministerial exemption is a matter of legislative grace, the selective service registrant bears the burden of clearly establishing a right to the exemption.” (Pp. 394, 395, 74 S.Ct. p. 156.) … gainful employment are not positive tests, but they are objective, measurable facts which persons of judgment and experience, such as members of a local board would naturally consider in determining whether a registrant qualifies

Pettaway v. Bobin

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 2023

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. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity

Steward v. Moore

555 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2008

The Sixth Circuit clearly places the burden of establishing due diligence on the petitioner. See DiCenzi, 452 F.3d at 471; Townsend v. … Thus, the first, second, and fifth factors clearly militate against equitable tolling. As discussed above, Steward has not established that he has been diligent in pursuing his right to file a habeas petition.

United States v. Chan Ho Shin

891 F. Supp. 2d 849 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 20, 2012

First, Shin asserts “the state of the law ... clearly portended the outcome in Kawashima ” because, at the time of his plea negotiations, three federal circuits had addressed this particular issue (Doc. 28 at 17). … That case dealt with whether a petitioner’s conviction for mail, bank, and wire fraud qualified as an aggravated felony under Section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). See Nijhawan, 557 U.S. at 32 , 129 S.Ct. 2294 .

Shurney v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

201 F. Supp. 2d 783 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 9, 2001

Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 , 113 S.Ct. 1439 , 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) (“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles *790 aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”); Landon v. … The immigration judge shall state clearly, on the record, the basis of an individualized determination whether any condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably ensure that Shurney will not flee and that

In re Sherk

108 F. Supp. 138 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 9, 1952

Such transactions were clearly within Section 6 of the Bankruptcy Act. … So on this discovery of and establishment of the facts in the said law suits in the District Court, unknown to the former trustee so he did not object to said claims and permitted their allowance, the new trustee is clearly

Voltz v. Chrysler Group LLC-UAW Pension Plan

63 F. Supp. 3d 770 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 22, 2014

The Plan Document A qualifying Chrysler employee may apply for Permanent and Total Disability Retirement (“PTDR”) under the Plan. Document. … There was some question of you having exhibiting [sic] a rash following inhalation exposure to colophony fumes; this is less clearly established.

In Re Keithley Instruments, Inc., Derivative Litigation

599 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2008

Backdating options *897 qualifies as one of those “rare cases [in which] a transaction may be so egregious on its face that board approval cannot meet the test of business judgment and a substantial likelihood of director … Plaintiffs stated clearly that their claims under § 10(b) are brought under Rule 10b-5, subsections (a) and (c).

Carter v. Watson

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 17, 2025

To establish the first predicate, the petitioner “must identify a ‘clearly established’ principle of ‘Federal law’ that” has been established by a holding of the Supreme Court. Fields v. … “[A] ‘clearly established’ principle of ‘Federal law’” refers to the “holdings,” not “dicta,” of the Supreme Court’s decisions.

Carovac v. Deepwood Center

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2020

In Dye’s view, this clearly evidenced verbal abuse. Dye heard someone on the recording say, “Stop it,” and Powers told Dye that the person was Dan- a fellow resident and one of Bill’s roommates. … At most, these actions might support negligence upon which Dye is immune.

Watkins

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 10, 2026

Plaintiff replies that “[r]ather than meet their heavy burden of establishing fraudulent joinder, Defendants continue to make a Motion to Dismiss argument (which is clearly not the subject of the remand), ask the Court … Plaintiff also “applied for various open positions in the Die Shop and as a Press Operator for which he was qualified” but was not promoted. (Id.).

Hamilton

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 25, 2026

Here, Chase does not claim that it is shielded by any sort of immunity. Nor does it point to a statute that would foreclose jurisdiction over Count one. … Morrin, 289 U.S. 103, 105 (1933) (“the federal question averred may be plainly unsubstantial … ‘because its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject

Estate of Taylor v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

268 F. Supp. 2d 873 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 19, 2002

Under Scott-Pontzer, Edna Taylor is clearly an insured under the St. Paul policy. … Paul also highlights numerous provisions of the policy under which the plaintiffs do not qualify as insureds. While apparently true, these assertions have absolutely no bearing on the question before the Court.

Holmer v. Alcove Ventures, LLC

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2024

In fact, the Employment Agreements clearly indicate that Plaintiffs read and understood the terms of the Arbitration Agreement and had an opportunity to consult with legal counsel. … Defendants do not dispute that Psych360 qualifies as an “employer” under the FLSA.