Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,217 results
0.88s
Perkins v. Lake County Department of Utilities
860 F. Supp. 1262 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 11, 1994
On or about July 2,1991, Plaintiff was denied a promotion and a white male was given a supervisory position for which Plaintiff was qualified. … Likewise, subjective perception of an individual’s race clearly plays an important role in racial classification where discrimination is involved.
Cited 6 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 22, 2025
Further, he claims that he and E.A. are qualified individuals with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. … A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact where it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.
Cited 0 timesUnknownArends v. Family Solutions of Ohio, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 31, 2025
“It is well established that courts retain the inherent power to enforce agreements entered into in settlement of litigation [ ] before them.” Brock v. … Moreover, and most importantly, the Responding Defendants are clearly parties to the Settlement Agreement.
Cited 0 timesUnknownArmington v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 16, 2021
The claimant has the following severe impairments: immune system disorder, osteoarthritis, and disorder of the back… 4. … establish a lack of substantial evidence by pointing to evidence … that supports her position.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSeneca Re-Ad Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of the Department of Labor
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 4, 2024
qualify as “Officers”); Jones Bros. Inc. v. … As required by its Section 14(c) certificate, Plaintiff: (1) established a prevailing wage rate for the work based on an annual survey of comparable jobs in Seneca County; (2) from time to time, established a “production
Cited 0 timesUnknown292 F.R.D. 485 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 11, 2013
Plaintiff, who was present at the sanctions hearing, was obviously available to testify, and the fact that the withheld document originated with him made him uniquely qualified to provide insight into the present discovery … The documents themselves, which plaintiff and his counsel withheld for years, clearly establish the above-mentioned facts, and admitting these facts, in no way, serves to sanction plaintiff and his counsel for their egregious
Cited 42 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 25, 2026
A high result is a sign of an autoimmune disorder, where the immune system attacks healthy cells in organs and tissues. … When the record “raises a substantial question as to whether [the claimant] could qualify as disabled” under a listing, the ALJ should discuss that listing. Abbott v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 2026
The statute clearly states what must be true for mandatory detention to be triggered: the alien must be: (1) “an applicant for admission,” (2) “seeking admission,” and (3) “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be … Respondents maintain that being an “applicant for admission” is thus a particular “way or manner” of seeking admission, such that any alien who qualifies as the former necessarily satisfies the latter.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSwanson v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 2023
However, the ALJ found that none qualified as past relevant work. See (Tr. 25). B. … In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the “paragraph C” criteria.
Cited 0 timesUnknown934 F. Supp. 1459 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 1, 1996
respondents prevailed on only one of their six general claims, for example the claim that petitioners’ visitation, mail, and telephone policies were overly restrictive, see n. 1, supra, a fee award based on the claimed hours clearly … From the foregoing observations, the Court concludes that, absent justification to the contrary, “the fee applicant bears the burden of establishing an entitlement to an award[.]” Hensley v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedCorporate Lodging Consultants, Inc. v. Szafarski
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 20, 2021
Plaintiff alleges that, over time, it has developed a proprietary sales model, “which includes prospecting, identifying, and qualifying potential corporate clients.” (Id. at ¶ 25.) … The Court finds that there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will be able to establish the existence of a trade secret.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJarvis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 1, 2024
Clearly the claimant was not making full effort at the IMCE. (Id.) D. … that it qualifies as a “necessary device” under SSR 96-9p.
Cited 0 timesUnknownKindhearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, Inc. v. Geithner
710 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 10, 2010
KindHearts contends that it is well established that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant and probable cause, or a recognized exception to those requirements. … Rather, the court, agreeing with the majority of circuits, held that where “the property is found to be subject to forfeiture after the process due has been afforded, the violation does not immunize the property from forfeiture
Cited 7 timesPublishedLumbus, Jr. v. Huntington Bank
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2025
Lumbus’s Complaint includes bank statements purportedly evidencing the fraudulent transactions, 10 which clearly show that his “account” is simply an … Thus, neither the “influence” a defendant has over a consumer’s transactions, nor that defendant’s “control” over the fund removal process qualifies a defendant as a financial institution subject to liability.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 29, 2023
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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownArends v. Family Solutions of Ohio, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 2, 2021
Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other privilege or immunity. … Power Co., 497 F.3d 573, 576 (“Renfro II”) (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that an employer must establish all three elements of the defense with regard to its employees in order to prevail).
Cited 0 timesUnknownIn Re Sulzer Hip Prosthesis and Knee Prosthesis Liability Litigation
268 F. Supp. 2d 907 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 12, 2003
Fees that were charged for counsel’s efforts taken primarily for the benefit of a given individual plaintiff, or even a smaller group of plaintiffs, and not the entire class of plaintiffs as a whole, did not qualify for reimbursement … Both of these categories of work clearly inured to the common benefit of the class, by foiling pointed efforts to derail the settlement. 41 .
Cited 18 timesPublishedTaylor v.Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 4, 2021
Taylor reported feeling “off balance” and “immune” to Seroquel, waking up agitated, having mood swings, a lack of appetite, poor sleep, and rapid heartbeat. (Id.) … On January 22, 2018, Taylor saw Scott Rohrbaugh, CNP, at Coleman Professional Services to establish care. (Id. at 472.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownRogers v. Bridges Rehabilitation Services LLC.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 2019
Bd. of Educ., 134 F.3d 796, 799 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Corning Glass Works, 417 U.S. at 196) (noting that the defense must establish their reason “so clearly that no rational jury could have found to the contrary”). … First, the plaintiff must be able to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination by showing that: “(1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action, (3) she was qualified
Cited 0 timesUnknownHealth Care Facilities Partners, LLC v. Diamond
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 14, 2022
“Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Cartwright v. Garner, 751 F.3d 752, 760 (6th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). … The motion does not dispute that these matters were kept confidential or that they could qualify as trade secrets.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna