Case law

Garrett & Co. v. A. Schmidt, Jr., & Bros. Wine Co.

256 F. 943 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 4, 1919

The validity of the words “Virginia Dare” as a trade-mark could not well be questioned, in view of Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros., 240 U. S. 251 , 26 Sup. Ct. 269, 60 L. … See McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245 , 24 L. Ed. 828 ; Menendez v. Holt, 126 U. S. 514 , 9 Sup. Ct. 143, 32 L. Ed. 526 ; Saxlehner v. Eisner, 179 U. S. 19 , 21 Sup. Ct. 7, 45 L. Ed. 60 .

F. Buddie Contracting Co. v. City of Elyria, Ohio

773 F. Supp. 1018 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 17, 1991

Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 , 107 S.Ct. 1442 , 94 L.Ed.2d 615 (1987); Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 , 106 S.Ct. 1842 , 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986); Fullilove v. … Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267, 274 , 106 S.Ct. 1842, 1847 , 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986).

Zamlen v. City of Cleveland

655 F. Supp. 1451 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 25, 1987

Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. at 757 , 100 S.Ct. at 1989 ; Doe v. Busbee, 684 F.2d at 1379 . … No. 1558, supra at 8 (quoting Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696 , 723 n. 28, 94 S.Ct. 2006 , 2022 n. 28, 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974).

Condappa

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 8, 2026

Specifically, the Board of Immigration Appeals mandatory detention rule established in Matter of A-W-, 25 I. & N. … .”); Nreka v.

Bishop v. Pecsok

431 F. Supp. 34 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 18, 1976

See, e. g., Jones v. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 , 88 S.Ct. 2186 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968); Hollins v. Kraas, 369 F.Supp. 1355 (D.C.Ill.1973). Race cannot be the sole reason for rejecting a prospective tenant; see, Bush v. … The defendant claims that he rejected the plaintiffs’ application for housing on the basis of objective standards employed across-the-board to all applicants without regard to race. This defense is without merit.

Casey v. City of Canton

253 F. 589 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 1918

In the case of Buchanan Bridge Co. v. Campbell, 60 Ohio St. 406 , 54 N. … the making, or fraud or. extortion in the execution of the contract for such work, nor any claim of effort to' put the contractor in statu quo by the return of the bridge or otherwise; the same having been accepted by the board

League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Blackwell

432 F. Supp. 2d 734 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2006

Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351, 358 (6th Cir.2005) (citing Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 21 , 10 S.Ct. 504 , 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890)). … Browning v. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989, 992 (6th Cir.1989). However, if a violation is continuing, the statute of limitations poses no bar. Bell v. Ohio State Univ., 351 F.3d 240, 247 (6th Cir.2003).

Sherwin-Williams Co. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

969 F. Supp. 465 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 1997

At the Teamsters Fund Board of Trustees meeting on November 26, 1990, the board discussed Lyons and authorized its executive administrator to request from Price Waterhouse the withdrawal liabililty for Lyons and to file on … See Massey v. City Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506 (6th Cir.1993).

United States v. Hart

895 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 1995

See, e.g., National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 36 , 57 S.Ct. 615, 623-24 , 81 L.Ed. 893 (1937). In United States v. … In Scarborough v.

Wong Sun v. Fluckey

283 F. 989 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 6, 1922

Cas. 82 , No. 7,597a; Carter v. McClaughry (C. C.) 105 Fed. 614 ; In re Kopel (D. C.) 148 Fed. 505 ; Chin Fong v. White, 258 Fed. 849 , 169 C. C. A. 569 . … See Bailey on Habeas Corpus, § 59; Brown on Jurisdiction of Courts, § 111; Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. 65, 94, 100 , 35 Am. Dec. 653 , 49 L. R. A. 831; Weir v. Marley, 99 Mo. 484 , 12 S. W. 798 ; Miskimmins v.

Gray Data, Inc v. Davian

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

(citing Chun v. Board of Trustees, 952 P.2d 1215, 1226 (Haw. 1998)). Consequently, current Wyoming case law states the exact opposite of what Plaintiffs’ construe it to be. … Tumblebus Inc. v. Cranmer, 399 F.3d 754, 761 (6th Cir. 2005).

Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Insurance Fund v. Philip Morris Inc.

29 F. Supp. 2d 801 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 23, 1998

Cenco Inc. v. … See also Nagel v.

Sanderson v. City of Toledo

73 F. 220 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 1896

In this case of Waring v. … Judge Longyear, in the case of Gillet v. Pierce, 1 Brown, Adm. 553 , Fed. Cas.

General Star Indemnity Company v. 1001 Starr Investments, LLC

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 2023

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). … See Jones v.

Damron v. Harris

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

See also Andrews v. … (quoting Malik v. McGinnis, 293 F.3d 559, 562-63 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Ashley v.

Conte v. White

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

Since Browning, it is well-settled that, in Ohio, O.R.C. § 2305.10 is the appropriate statute of limitations in § 1983 cases. See also LRL Properties v. … See Brown v. Cuyahoga Cty., 517 Fed. Appx. 431, 435 (6th Cir. 2013); North v. Cty of Cuyahoga, 2017 WL 3065502, at *8 (N.D. Ohio July 19, 2017).

United States v. Battersby

398 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2005

United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 680 , 103 S.Ct. 2132 , 76 L.Ed.2d 236 (1983). … United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land, 441 U.S. 506, 510-513 , 99 S.Ct. 1854, 1856-1858 , 60 L.Ed.2d 435 (1979). Rodgers, 461 U.S. at 703-04 , 103 S.Ct. 2132 .

Braun v. Northern Ohio Bank

430 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 17, 1977

In Ernst & Ernst v. … Citing Simmons v.

Dartron Corp. v. Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc.

917 F. Supp. 1173 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 22, 1996

Brown v. Cuenca, 1990 WL 20062 at *2 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 783 at *5 (Ohio Ct.App. Feb. 28, 1990). Thus, Uniroyal’s promise regarding hazardous and toxic materials did not merge into the deed by law. … .; United Technologies v. Browning-Ferris Inds., Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 98 (1st Cir.1994) (“United Technologies”).

Ward v. County of Cuyahoga

721 F. Supp. 2d 677 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 29, 2010

Yates v. … It is not clear, however, from the evidence provided that such a review board is required, nor would a onetime failure to convene such a board establish that the County rarely follows its own policies.