Case law

Elmer v. S.H. Bell Co.

127 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 31, 2015

See also Her Majesty The Queen, 874 F.2d at 342-343 (“[the plain language of the CAA’s savings clause] ... clearly indicates that Congress did not wish to abolish state control.”) … To determine whether a defendant’s conduct qualifies as ultrahazardous, a court considers: (1) if the defendant’s conduct creates a high degree of risk of harm to others; (2) the likelihood that the defendant’s conduct will

Phillips v. Phillips

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 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. … To establish a violation under Section 1983, a plaintiff must show that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

Hart v. United States

291 F. Supp. 2d 635 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 5, 2003

The IRS then explained that it “will consider any other issue relating to the propriety of the proposed enforcement action or any other qualifying issue,” including proposals regarding collection alternatives. S.A. … Clearly, each of the declarations sought by plaintiff relate to federal taxes.

Szarell v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 2019

A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised upon an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the Court’s authority to hear a case. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

Mahramus v. Freshmark, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2025

In opposition, Plaintiff points only to her own deposition testimony to establish that she clearly described a situation of her mental conditions leading to her being unable to return to Freshmark due to conditions … For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff fails point to a genuine issue of material fact that she had a serious medical condition qualifying her for leave under the FLMA.

United States v. Horton

941 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 2013

This clearly meets the “substantially likely” standard. … The government has, therefore, established the second Sell factor by clear and convincing evidence.

United States v. One DLO Model A/C, 30.06 MacHine Gun, Serial Number 86-70056

904 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 1, 1995

Katona is meritless based on the facts of the case and established case law. … The statute of limitations provision clearly states it applies to proceedings for the forfeiture of “firearms,” which, as defined in § 921 means non-NFA firearms.

Heckathorn v. Baldauf

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 19, 2022

Fundamental fairness challenges based on the admission of graphic photographs at trial are not supported by clearly established Supreme Court law. See, e.g., Franklin v. … established federal law).

Phillips v. LaRose

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 2019

with drawing more attention to this area of the case – “a competent defense attorney, having reviewed the prosecutor's discovery materials, may likely have made a strategic decision not to insist on the presence of a qualified … Phillips fails to show the state court’s ineffective-assistance conclusion was a decision “that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Bryant v. Secretary U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Agency

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 7, 2025

While § 2675(a) establishes when a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) establishes the statute of limitations for a cause of action under the FTCA. … Each case clearly supports that proposition.

Lately v. Silacal, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 24, 2025

Under this statute, Ferrell qualifies as a statutory employee of Silacal and Silical will be liable if Ferrell is found negligent. ¶ 23 (Ct. App.)). … “Courts have clearly held that a claim for punitive damages cannot survive if a plaintiff only requests such damages in a prayer for relief without supporting the pleading with factual content that, if proven, would warrant

Thom v. Aggrey

455 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 20, 1977

Their attorneys are qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation. … An examination of Ohio Revised Code § 5101.51, establishes that Ohio adopted the standards set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(f).

Plitt v. Atrium Living Centers, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 2020

“To establish a valid claim for age discrimination under the ADEA, Plaintiff must prove that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she incurred an adverse action; (3) she was qualified for the position she held … Thus, Plitt argues Riffe and Duffala had clearly established written responsibility to maintain active licenses and verify that the licenses were timely renewed while Plitt did not have such written responsibilities.

Taylor v. City of East Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 27, 2021

To establish the prima facie case, a plaintiff must “show that 1) he is a member of a protected class; 2) he was qualified for his job and performed it satisfactorily; 3) despite his qualifications and performance, he suffered … Clearly, neither of these officers engaged in the same conduct as plaintiff, ie., disregarding a direct order to do a task.

Robinson

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 5, 2026

. § 1692, et seq., to the extent that a FDCPA violation is established, any such violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding maintenance of procedures reasonable [sic] adapted … “Instead, it is a qualifying hurdle that plaintiff[] must satisfy even if raised sua sponte by the court.” Edison Brewing Co. LLC v. Gourmet Fresh LLC, 2:21-cv-876, 2022 WL 899695, at *4 (S.D.

B&S Transport, Inc. v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC

171 F. Supp. 3d 669 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2016

Under McDonnell Douglas model, plaintiff may establish a prima face case of race discrimination by showing that “1) he is a member of a protected class; 2) he was qualified for the job and performed it satisfactorily; 3) … When defendants moved for summary judgment on the NFMA claim, defendants also did not mention plaintiffs' allegation regarding road density, but "clearly sought to extinguish the whole of plaintiffs’ claim under the Act.”

AWG Leasing Trust v. United States

592 F. Supp. 2d 953 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 28, 2008

A SILO head lease typically involves a lease term sufficiently long to qualify as a sale under United States tax law. … In this case, the head lease was sufficiently long to qualify as a sale for tax purposes.

Jordany Efrain Ramos Ramirez v. Field Office Director, Detroit Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Official Capacity; U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2026

Therefore, the record does not establish that the IJ applied an unconstitutional burden of proof, nor does it establish that the IJ failed to adhere to the commands of procedural due process of the Fifth Amendment. … Petitioner further asserts that “[a]lthough [18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5] was not clearly cited in the IJ’s order, I-213 or other charging documentation, the order implies that the IJ assumed Petitioner’s submitting a gun application

Marshall v. Moore

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 16, 2024

Supreme Court has not clearly established that a state court’s admission of propensity evidence is unconstitutional. Bugh v. … Moreover, his third ground for relief is not cognizable in this Court, because there is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent establishing a due process violation for permitting propensity evidence.

Keith

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 15, 2025

Clearly established federal law is to be determined by the holdings (as opposed to the dicta) of the United States Supreme Court. See Parker v. … Indeed, the Supreme Court has indicated that circuit precedent does not constitute “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” Parker, 567 U.S. at 48-49; Howes v.