Case law

Colvin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2019

Plaintiff further argues that the ALJ did not clearly articulate his findings as to whether Plaintiff met or equaled the requirements of Listing 1.04. … Plaintiff’s attempts to more fully develop a treating physician argument in his reply brief comes too late, as it is well-established that new substantive issues cannot be raised in a reply brief.

United States v. Euclid City School Board

632 F. Supp. 2d 740 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 13, 2009

The establishment of racial bloc voting under Gingles gives rise to a presumption of liability and “it would be the ‘unusual case in which the plaintiffs can establish the existence of [racial bloc voting] but still have … L.Rev. 139, 171. 19 Finally, the OSBA points this Court to troubling examples of recent misconduct on the part of school board officials in Ohio, and suggests that any action that reduces the number of qualified potential

United States v. Harchar

371 B.R. 254 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 6, 2007

Accordingly, the foreign cases with different facts cited by the IRS do not establish per se rules as the IRS contends. … The issue in Brockelman was whether this fact mattered for sovereign immunity purposes.

Glasgow v. Beers

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 2024

Defendants have cited no authority suggesting that a valid HCSM is incapable of committing the tort of conversion or immune from such a cause of action. … Moreover, the moving Defendants, Abel and Bellis, are not HCSMs and they have cited no authority suggesting that they derive any immunity from being officers of such an entity.

Lorton v. Wainwright

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 18, 2022

was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim – (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … Based on this standard, Petitioner does not qualify for a certificate of appealability.

Hefflin v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2021

To qualify, a child recipient must also meet certain income an d resource limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1100, 416.1201. … However, Plaintiff has not identified any regulations or clearly established binding precedent that compels an ALJ to find marked limitations in this specific domain based on testing results in the range scored by LDS.

Pacl v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 4, 2020

A protocol to boost her immune system had shown some improvement in her condition. (Tr. 4236). … He stated that it was difficult to understand Pacl’s need for oxygen and immune globulin injections. (Tr. 1872-1877).

Liberty Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 3, 2024

The Special Master found that Plaintiffs “met their [burden] . . . to establish some objective basis” to demonstrate the cost associated with reformatting the ASOBRs. … A ruling that is arbitrary, unjustifiable, or clearly unreasonable constitutes an abuse of discretion. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co. v. City of Lakewood, 794 F.2d 1139, 1148 (6th Cir. 1986).

Lott v. Coyle

2 F. Supp. 2d 961 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 11, 1998

Clearly, “pending” is a malleable term whose meaning depends on the specific context in which it is used and the purposes to which it is being put. … See 512 U.S. at 859 (“By providing indigent capital defendants with a mandatory right to qualified legal counsel in these proceedings, Congress has recognized that federal habeas corpus has a particularly important role to

VJH Homes, LLC v. City of Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2023

Constitution,’ is based on clearly established law that “Under the police power society may restrict the use of property without making compensation thereof, if the restriction be reasonably necessary for the preservation … Once the Director receives your written plan, the Director may establish a reasonable time for you to comply with the condemnation notice.

Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Cormetech, Inc.

168 F. Supp. 3d 1017 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 10, 2016

B&W’s Technical Specifications contain a provision that states, “In the event site service is required, [Corme-tech] shall furnish a qualified representative for such service at the stipulated per diem rate in [Cormetech’ … B&W’s second argument with respect to the merits of its indemnification claim is that circumstantial evidence “clearly demonstrates that the catalyst was defective.” Doc. 114, p. 23.

Booker-Brown v. Gray

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 13, 2024

Rather, the Magistrate Judge’s decision is subject to review under Rule 72(a) and reversal when it “is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See Curtis, 237 F.3d at 603; Alvarado v. … This qualifies as an “unsworn declaration.” See Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601, 611 n.20 (6th Cir. 1998), and Little v. BP Expl. & Oil Co., 265 F.3d 357, 363 n.3 (6th Cir. 2001).

Handel's Enterprises, Inc. v. Schulenburg

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 6, 2020

The purpose of the amendment was to allow Handel’s franchisees to qualify for Small Business Administration (“SBA”) financing. (Doc. No. 72- 2 at ¶¶ 4-5.) … In this case, Handel’s has not met its burden of proving that extension of the preliminary injunction is clearly warranted.

Cody v. Sheldon

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

Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), et al., and to obtain discovery on his own behalf pursuant to [clearly established federal law as explained by] D’Ambrosio v. … 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.

Benchmark Construction Co., Inc. v. City of Lima, Ohio

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

Because the language of the contract clearly indicates a benefit to Benchmark, MGU cannot use this evidence to genuinely dispute it was an intended third-party beneficiary. … Coleman’s Affidavit does not show by a preponderance of proof that Coleman is qualified to testify as an expert regarding these matters. Cook, 478 F. Supp. 3d at 663.

Davis v. Fender

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 5, 2025

“A decision is ‘contrary to’ clearly established federal law when ‘the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or decides a case differently than the Supreme … “Clearly established Federal law for purposes of § 2254(d)(1) includes only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court's decisions.” White v.

Doe v. Oberlin College

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 16, 2023

App’x 500, 502 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding that the defendants’ breach of the school’s Sexual Misconduct Policy by failing to advise the plaintiff of his right to an attorney qualified as a breach of contract claim). … His response states only that his amended complaint “clearly sets forth a plausible cause of action for Defendant Mosely’s negligence.” ECF Doc. 21 at 15. This is not enough.

Ware v. North Shore Placement Services, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 30, 2023

And it is established that “statutory interpretation is a question of law.” In re Palmer, 219 F.3d 580, 583 (6th Cir. 2000). … Adding more detail to what Ware has thus far described would not change the fact that the work Ware described was, plainly and clearly, within the provision of health care services.

McDaniel

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 4, 2026

Beginning with the inquiry into whether the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” … McDaniel has failed to show that the state court’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent under § 2254(d)(1).

In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation

135 F. Supp. 3d 679 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 19, 2015

SRAM is inapt not only because Ashley’s opt-in would have twice the dilution effect of HP’s opt-in (though that alone establishes prejudice in this case). … The escrow accounts established by certain of the parties, and into which ■ Settlement Funds have been and will be deposited, plus accrued interest, is approved as a Qualified Settlement Fund pursuant to Internal Revenue