Case law

Doe 1 v. Varsity Brands, LLC

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 2, 2023

“As for liability, the victim must show that his abuser violated a qualifying criminal statute.” Id. … The court noted that “[s]quarely applicable to this case is the principle of federal maritime law that a cruise line is strictly liable for a crew member’s assault of a passenger,” a principle clearly established by two

Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products, Inc.

489 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 22, 1980

Rule 53(e)(2) provides that “the court-shall accept the master’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.” … The outer scope of the doctrine has not been clearly defined, see McCullough Tool Company v.

Wyskocil v. Medtronic USA, Inc.

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

Plaintiff Stephanie Wyskocil is the duly appointed, qualified and acting Administrator of the Estate of Robert Wyskocil, Deceased (hereinafter “Decedent”). (Id. at ¶ 1.) … Although “at this time, [P]laintiff does not know why the device(s) failed,” Plaintiff asserts that such failure(s) “clearly … resulted in [D]ecedent’s demise,” and thus, “Plaintiff should be permitted to conduct discovery

Washington Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board

526 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 17, 1981

And I would say that that would clearly indicate that they would be in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations. … The letter concludes: We still feel that with your support we are best qualified to handle the situation in a manner that will be most beneficial to all concerned.

Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

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

Hayes relayed that he was working to establish SSI benefits again. Tr. 393. … Hayes also contends that the ALJ erred in assessing Hayes’ RFC because she was not qualified to interpret the EEG results; substituted her lay interpretation for that of qualified medical physicians; relied on outdated

United States v. City of Euclid

580 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 16, 2008

Handley’s test — whether minority voters and white voters would elect different sets of candidates if each voted separately — is more clearly in line with existing Section 2 jurisprudence. … The Court finds that the two Senate Factors most critical to establishing a Section 2 violation, racial bloc voting and the failure to elect minority candidates have been established here.

Duke's K9 Dash N' Splash, LLC v. Zizka

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2024

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ Takings Clause claim on various grounds, including that plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege the essential elements of the claim, that they are entitled to immunity, that the … As an initial matter, Sixth Circuit precedent does not establish that an individual officer can be liable for a Takings Clause claim, so none of the individual defendants’ potential individual liability was clearly established

Austin v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

Hayes relayed that he was working to establish SSI benefits again. Tr. 393. … Hayes also contends that the ALJ erred in assessing Hayes’ RFC because she was not qualified to interpret the EEG results; substituted her lay interpretation for that of qualified medical physicians; relied on outdated

United States v. Perez

440 F. Supp. 272 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 21, 1977

the “protected area ” approach of the pre-Katz era, the United States Supreme Court continually recognized that a defendant’s residential premises were not a sanctuary where a criminal possessed an absolute, unqualified immunity … However that holding is clearly modified by the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351-352, 361 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). 44 . See, People v.

Kubala v. Smith

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 27, 2019

Smith encouraged Kubala to come and visit his renter, “Richard,” at his rental property and clearly implied a sexual liaison; c. … They contend that Plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim fails as a matter of law because he cannot demonstrate a number of required elements in order to proceed with his claims and Defendant Smith is immune from liability for

Chapman

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 10, 2026

The undersigned has not asked Respondent to supplement the record regarding the status of the assessment because, as discussed herein, the record does not clearly establish that the ripeness of the three claims in the Petition … Chapman’s alleged conversations with the Warden and/or Associate Warden do not establish cause to excuse his default in exhausting his administrative remedies.

Swartz

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 27, 2026

“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. … Applying the double layer of deference under AEDPA, the Eighth Appellate District’s holding was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Johnson v. Harris

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 22, 2024

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.

Jones v. Wittenburg

509 F. Supp. 653 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 18, 1980

RULE 3 The Sheriff shall provide the Court Administrator with a Center report by the third working day of each month clearly stating the name and booking date of each inmate. … That Order indicated that only books or periodicals which clearly fell within the definition of pornography as established by the United States Supreme Court would be censored.

United States v. City of Akron

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 1, 2024

Accordingly, a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. … Framed differently, Akron contends that because its completed projects have been more efficient than anticipated, such a fact qualifies as a significant change in circumstances.

Barnes v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 12, 2021

Bare allegations of confusion and anxiety do not qualify as injuries in fact. Garland, 999 F.3d at 440. “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” Thole v. U.S. … The Letter did not threaten suit; in fact, it clearly stated that Defendant would not sue Plaintiff because of the age of the debt.

Denaro

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

Qualified vocational expert, Alida Coles, also testified. Tr. 63–71. During the hearing, the ALJ and Denaro’s counsel posed several hypotheticals to Coles. … In Drummond, the Sixth Circuit said that certain previous cases “clearly demonstrate that the principles of res judicata can be applied against the Commissioner.

In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation

86 F. Supp. 3d 769 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 2015

Following lively bidding, Foamex sought approval from the bankruptcy court of an all-cash bid of $141.5 million from Wayzata, and a ruling that the MP-Foam-DIP bid, which included cash and credit, was not qualified. … Direct Purchasers are correct that, in this case, FXI clearly did continue Foamex’s business operations after the Asset Sale.

Lazzerini v. Black

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 9, 2024

“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.

Clark v. McConahay

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

A state court does not act contrary to clearly established law when the precedent of the Supreme Court is ambiguous or nonexistent. See Mitchell v. … Clark’s case suggests a decision contrary to, or involving an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See Jackson v.