Case law

Ripepi v. USA Taekwondo, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2021

Defendants focus their personal jurisdiction arguments on the kick to the head Ripepi allegedly suffered at the UK Camp in England, and the subsequent lack of medical care which also occurred in England, Plaintiffs have clearly … Although, if the complaint itself establishes the affirmative defense, a motion to dismiss may resolve the issue. See id. at 762 (discussing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity). See also, Cataldo v. U.S.

Shank

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2026

The SSR explains what “established onset date” (EOD) means and clarifies how the Social Security Administration (SSA) determines EOD. … This Code provision clearly informs applicants that pain is “subjective and difficult to quantify” and therefore medical and nonmedical sources will be considered.

Bob's Beverage, Inc. v. Acme, Inc.

169 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 29, 1999

Investigators found that “[gjroundwater quality data indicate clearly that CVOCs have migrated from the identified source area at the site. … Plaintiff has the burden of establishing each party’s equitable share of response costs. Id. 2.

In re Inter-Op Hip Prosthesis Liability Litigation

204 F.R.D. 359 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 31, 2001

The process employed to date, however, as searching as it has been, is clearly preliminary and is no substitute for that which can be, and now in this case will be, accomplished through a full fairness inquiry. … [and] there is a common body of science establishing the causal connection between the diet drugs and [the] ... injuries.

Noakes v. Case Western Reserve University

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2021

“To qualify as ‘adverse,’ an educational action must be sufficiently severe to dissuade a ‘reasonable person’ from engaging in the protected activity.” Gordon, 686 Fed. … Moreover, even assuming arguendo that Noakes had sufficiently established that the Tumblr website investigation constitutes an “adverse action,” the Court finds that he has failed to establish a substantial likelihood

Reynolds v. FCA US LLC

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 24, 2021

Defendant has clearly satisfied this burden by offering a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff’s termination: he violated Defendant’s Policy No. 3-6. See Doc. 16-11. … Plaintiff clearly does not satisfy this burden because, as Defendant points out in Reply, Hill is also African-American and thus not “outside of [Plaintiff’s] protected class”. Id.

Pixley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 28, 2025

SSA POMS DI 25510.001(B).2 To establish a closed period of disability, the evidence must establish: the onset date; that the duration requirement is met; and the date the disability ceased. … Pixley did not qualify for a closed period of disability benefits, and because the ALJ’s explanation for her disability determination therefore failed to “build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the

Sykes v. Kreiger

451 F. Supp. 421 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 15, 1975

“a right of access to the courts is one of the rights a prisoner clearly retains. … The jail physician shall enter into negotiations with the Academy of Medicine’s Committee on Correctional and Jail Medicine to establish a committee of doctors to receive, investigate and consider complaints, promptly and

Lisan v. Wilke

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 9, 2020

We suspect that in some instances the anesthesiologists she managed to get rid of were more qualified than the ones she hired to replace them. Moreover, Dr. … Bearss’ testimony does not sufficiently establish that Dr.

Hayden v. 2K Games, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 20, 2022

That constitutes factual copying; but Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot establish actionable copying. … Plaintiff maintains that the Tattoos are accurately and prominently displayed and can be clearly viewed by the users of the NBA 2K video games.

Greenburg v. Hiner

359 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 3, 2005

The claimants submitted evidence of a qualifying medical condition and exposure to an OC or Fibreboard asbestos product, and OC processed each claim and scheduled a settlement payment. … In other words: [T]he plaintiff need not have before him all the facts necessary to establish that a statement was untrue or omitted before the limitations period accrues.

Cooper

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 30, 2026

As amended by the Reagan Tokes Act, the Ohio Revised Code’s sentences for first and second degree qualifying felonies violates the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio. … To evade this clearly established legal principle, Petitioner instead argues that the adequacy of available State court review mechanisms effectively foreclosed review or, more accurately, only permitted

Reynolds v. Smith

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 8, 2025

First, clearly established federal law for purposes of AEDPA review includes “the holdings, as opposed to dicta, of [U.S. Supreme Court] decisions.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000). … However, a state court does not act contrary to clearly established federal law where U.S. Supreme Court precedent is ambiguous or otherwise unavailable. See, e.g., Mitchell v.

Rice v. Social Security Administration

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

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. … A plaintiff must also establish a subjective element showing the prison officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Id.

United States v. Stankovich

867 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2012

A court may not decide a motion on the basis of clearly erroneous findings of fact, an improper application of the law, or an erroneous legal standard. Schafer v. … Stankovich, therefore, qualifies as a bona fide purchaser of the property for purposes of R.C. § 5301.25(A). 4. Actual Knowledge Standard The case law relied upon by U.S.A. does not demand a contrary result.

Gallo v. Moen, Inc.

27 F. Supp. 3d 832 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 23, 2014

Under traditional principles of contract interpretation, the law does not require contracting parties to share a subjective meeting of the minds to establish a valid contract; otherwise, no matter how clearly the parties … assistance, and increased deductibles and co-payments — will destroy their limited incomes.” 122 Further, Moen’s contention that Medicaid coverage may be available to class members did not persuade the Court because “in order to qualify

Bonwick v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 23, 2024

Qualified vocational expert Gail Klier also testified. Tr. 58. In April 2023, the ALJ issued a written decision, which found that Bonwick was not entitled to benefits. … It is a standard classification of occupations established by the Social Security Administration.

Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company v. Jacobs

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 2022

to proceeds have arisen during the normal course of business;” (2) “insurance companies, by definition, are interested stakeholders” rather than disinterested mere stakeholders because “filing the interpleader action immunizes … Clearly, without this interpleader action, Globe Life could have been subject to various conflicting lawsuits claiming the Policy’s proceeds, suggesting Globe Life initiated this matter out of self- interest.

E.V.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 16, 2025

Qualified noncitizens granted parole—which could last up to two years—are able to apply for employment authorization. See, e.g., Implementation of a Parole Process for Venezuelans, 87 Fed. … “The burden of proving that the circumstances ‘clearly demand’ such an extraordinary remedy is a heavy one: ‘[t]he party seeking the injunction must establish its case by clear and convincing evidence.’ ” Marshall v.

Dovala v. Tim

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 19, 2020

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. … Moreover, 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.