Case law

Roberts v. County of Mahoning

495 F. Supp. 2d 694 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 25, 2006

On the contrary, it is the plain duty of the sheriff to obey and enforce and to command his subordinates to obey and enforce the rules established by the court." … How this is done Inmates who qualify, depending on the seriousness of their crimes, either serve time when jail space is available or have their sentences converted or suspended by judges.

Mahaley v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority

355 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 22, 1973

Moreover, it does not establish an invidious discrimination based upon wealth. … That testimony was substantiated by the fact that approximately 5600 qualified persons are presently on the waiting list for low income public housing and that many of these persons prefer suburban locations.

Quilter v. Voinovich

981 F. Supp. 1032 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 22, 1997

If it did, Ohio, unlike other states, would be effectively immune from federal court review of its apportionment plans under Shaw, on grounds of abstention; moreover, any other state would be able to shield itself from Shaw … Arguably, no level of scrutiny is applicable once the plaintiffs fail to meet the threshold established by the Shaw cases.

United States v. Damrah

322 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 2004

The agents’ presence in this case clearly surpasses these limits. The Court notes that an arrest warrant does not open the gate to a defendant’s castle indefinitely. … In Mendoza, the court found that the thirty to forty-five intervening minutes between the unlawful entry and the consent was a long enough period of time to qualify as an intervening circumstance.

Schenck v. City of Hudson

997 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 1998

As part of this merger, the City established a plan for land use, including a limitation on growth. … The City of Hudson has 350-375 lots that have preliminary or final plat approval and are, therefore, qualified for the priority pool.

Stewart v. Ivey

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 21, 2021

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. … To state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that a person acting under state law deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v.

Ulrich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

792 F. Supp. 1074 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 2, 1991

The testimony of the aforementioned employees establishes that they were unaware of this “true fact.” … Clearly, the change in position stemming from the reliance, on the whole, benefited plaintiffs more than the broken promise harmed them.

Dugger v. Honeywell International Inc.

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

Dugger asserts this complaint establishes that Mr. Hached made misrepresentations in his affidavit because Mr. … Dugger’s] immediate manager” is “insufficient” to establish purposeful availment. ECF Doc. 22 at 9. Mr.

United States v. Hartford-Empire Co.

46 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 1942

Brown of Hartford, regarding the McKee Glass Company, dated January 2, 1935, reading as follows: “It has never been clearly established as to just how far we can go in price control in the licensing of patented machinery … But a patent affords no immunity for a monopoly not within the grant.”

Lott

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 2026

A person is liable under § 1983 who “under color of” state law “subjects, or causes to be subjected,” another person “to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution[.]” … In the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff is required to “‘set forth clearly in their pleading that they are suing the state defendants in their individual capacity for damages, not simply in their capacity as state officials.

Bryant v. Wilkie

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 30, 2022

a request is clearly beyond the scope of the Court’s authority. … Section 504 of the Act provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . .

Carosiello v. Eppinger

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2022

hearing pursuant to the Castle doctrine; did not collect police reports to establish the victim’s pattern of stalking me; did not investigate the crime scene to familiarize themselves with the layout of the … Even assuming arguendo that the claims were not adjudicated on the merits, Petitioner does not clearly identify what facts he seeks to develop in support of these two grounds for relief.

Wuliger v. Anstaett

363 F. Supp. 2d 917 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 5, 2005

The burden of proof is upon the Defendant to establish that the statute of limitations has run relative to their affirmative defense. Griffin v. … "Although receivers may be shielded by principles of immunity, that does not convert their claims into public actions for purposes of securities laws.

Roberts v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company

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

Plaintiffs, therefore, have clearly failed to establish standing to seek retrospective relief and their claim is properly dismissed on a motion to dismiss. … Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing standing.

Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Baldwin Filters, Inc.

724 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2010

LAW and ANALYSIS A patent is presumed valid and the party moving for invalidity has the burden of establishing invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. See Atlas Powder Co. v. … Wix Filtration Corp., 1:06 CV 00098, 2006 WL 3028706 (E.D.Cal.2006) will receive defer *816 ential treatment unless clearly erroneous.

Lonergan v. Gallagher Sharp, LLP

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 10, 2025

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 … Consequently, the examination of a complaint for a plausible claim for relief is undertaken in conjunction with the “well-established principle that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain

Bobnar v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 9, 2023

This subsection “protects all employees from medical inquiries, regardless of whether they have a qualifying disability.” Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 566, 573-74 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Kroll v. … Indeed, AstraZeneca provided Bobnar with an exemption form clearly labeled “Religious Reasonable Accommodation Form,” which Bobnar attached to his Opposition. (See Doc.

Kauffman

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 17, 2026

“An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530, 110 S.Ct. 885, 107 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990). … system (Felty’s syndrome (hypersplenism with compromised immune competence)).” 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, Listing 14.00D6(e)(iii). 1.

Lazzerini

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 4, 2025

“Clearly established federal law” is “the governing legal principle, or principles, set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. … To be unreasonable, the state court’s harmlessness determination must be contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Bell v. Hurley, 97 F.

United States v. Cleveland Trust Company

392 F. Supp. 699 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 30, 1974

As of September, 1968, defendant allegedly had full power to vote about twenty percent, and qualified power to vote about five percent, of Acme’s stock. … It is firmly established that “[m]ere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot a case . . . .” United States v.