Case law

Brown v. Routzahn

58 F.2d 329 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 9, 1931

It was clearly not competent for the devisee here to pick and choose. He can not reject one part and accept the rest. The matter is really closed by authority.” See, also, Green v. Britten, 42 L. J. … Although decedent and plaintiff qualified as executors in June, 1912, and the three testamentary trustees were appointed in August, 1913, no steps were taken to settle the estate until March, 1920.

Rushing v. Wood Health Company, LLC

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2025

determine whether Rushing qualified for medical staff privileges at the Wood County Hospital. (Doc. No. 1-5 at 1-2); (see also Doc. No. 1 at 3). … “[A]t the motion-to-dismiss stage, a plaintiff is not required to plead facts establishing a prima facie case as is required under McDonnell Douglas.” Ogbonna-McGruder v.

Merritt v. GB Manufacturing Company

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 2022

He was a longtime employee and Defendant does not contest that he was qualified. … The Sixth Circuit “‘honest belief’ rule”71 establishes that “as long as the employer honestly believed the reason it gave for its employment action, an employee is not able to establish pretext even if the employer's reason

Glauser-Nagy v. Medical Mutual of Ohio

987 F. Supp. 1002 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 8, 1997

movant with substantially all the relief she seeks and where the relief could not thereafter be undone, even if the non-moving party later prevails at trial, the requested relief should be denied unless the facts and law clearly … Where, as in the case at bar, there is widespread disagreement among qualified medical experts over whether the treatment or procedure at issue has crossed the line from being an experimental procedure to become an acceptable

Mills v. Wallace

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 7, 2024

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.

McAllister v. Maier

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2022

A plaintiff must also establish a subjective element showing the prison officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Id. … It is possible, however, to read McAllister’s complaint as alleging that although he qualifies for treatment under the policy, he has been denied the antiviral medication.

Davis v. Duncan

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 23, 2025

to protect claim; (5) Plaintiff cannot establish a claim for supervisory liability against either Osborn or Taylor; (6) Plaintiff cannot establish a Monell claim; and (7) Plaintiff cannot establish entitlement … Defendants further move for summary judgment as to any claim against Osborn, arguing he is entitled to qualified immunity on any Eighth Amendment claim and there is no evidence to support a supervisory liability claim.

Harper v. City of Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 10, 2020

Discussion Defendants argue that this action clearly meets the standard articulated in Christiansburg. … The Supreme Court held that “the presence of reasonable allegations in a suit does not immunize the plaintiff against paying for the fees that his frivolous claims imposed.”

Willis

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 29, 2026

Willis was reevaluated in 2012, 2015, and 2018, each time continuing to qualify under the specific learning disability category. (Id.) … Willis was seen by Olga Guzovsky, M.D. on December 7, 2021 for immunization and a routine health examination. (Tr. 383.) The examination did not yield abnormal findings, with Dr. Guzovsky again finding that Mr.

Csehi v. Smith

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 13, 2025

Claim No. #10: Appellant was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel where counsel failed to raise on direct appeal ineffective assistance of trial counsel where trial counsel failed to obtain qualified … (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish

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

23 F. Supp. 2d 771 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 1998

Count VII clearly states a cause of action for “Negligent Breach of Special Duty.” … First, the quoted language describes general language from a treatise without clearly adopting the treatise. The Supreme Court does not clearly adopt the description in the treatise.

Fields v. Davis

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 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.

Sweeting v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 6, 2019

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. … He must then establish that the prison official was “deliberately indifferent” to that serious medical need.

Grohl

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 6, 2026

Mahdi clearly articulated that [p]laintiff needed a cane and rollator (walker with a seat) to help with [p]laintiff’s activities of daily living, shopping, improve quality of life, and fall prevention[.]” (Id. … as medical documentation establishing the need for the assistive device under SSR 96-9p.

Re/Max International, Inc. v. Smythe, Cramer Co.

265 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 20, 2003

Contract, Combination or Conspiracy To establish a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 , a plaintiff “must establish that the defendants combined or conspired with an intent to unreasonably restrain trade … Martin clearly stated in different ways on a number of occasions that “without coordinated conduct, parallel imposition of adverse splits is implausible.”

Deloitte Tax LLP v. Murray

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 4, 2022

Dec. 10, 2012) (“Confidential source code clearly meets the definition of a trade secret.”); LinkCo, Inc. v. Fujitsu Ltd., 230 F. … The court explained further: “The protective orders clearly allow [plaintiff] access to any Confidential Information through counsel not associated with [him].

Arredondo v. Beer Barrel Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 2022

Prima Facie Case of Race Discrimination The parties do not dispute that Arredondo was a Hispanic man, who was qualified for the job. … But I consider it to be clearly discriminatory when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Arredondo.

Safe Choice, LLC v. City of Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 30, 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 … Such conclusory statements are insufficient to establish a Monell claim.”); Red Cone 12 LLC v. City of Columbus, 758 F.

Province v. Cleveland Press Publishing Co.

605 F. Supp. 945 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 1985

In February of 1982, Del-Com was established with $500 in capital. It immediately incurred substantial debts and losses. … The requirements of antitrust injury clearly are satisfied, giving the victims standing to bring treble damage actions.

BECK Industries, LLC v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 19, 2025

Beedle entered a clearly marked, restricted area at the Plant; and, that Mr. Beedle agreed to perform the type of sort that he was explicitly told by management not to perform. Mr. Beedle disputes yelling at Ms. … Furthermore, “The doctrine of qualified privilege is applicable to tortious interference cases, and acts performed within a business relationship are considered subject to a qualified privilege.”