Case law

Village of Hubbard v. United States

278 F. 754 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 1922

In City of New York v. United States et al. (D. … See Willson v. Rock Creek Ry. Co., 7 Interst. Com. Com’n R. 83; Chicago & M. Electric R. Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 13 Interst. Com. Com’n R. 20; Beall v. Washington, A. & Mt. V. Ry. Co., 20 Interst. Com.

Armatas v. Haws

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 27, 2021

Later, Armatas directly contacted Plain Township Board of Trustees member Scott Haws. … Bare v. Fed. Express Corp., 886 F. Supp.2d 600, 605-606 (N.D.Ohio 2012); Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 909 (6th Cir. 2003). Doc. 30 at 2-3.

Harrismosby

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 20, 2026

Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). Nor does it allow district courts to conjure up allegations, draw unsupported inferences, or construct claims on a pro se plaintiff’s behalf. See Erwin v. … See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).

Meade v. Lorain County, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 15, 2023

Each county’s “board of county commissioners may sue and be sued, and plead and be impleaded, in any court.” Ohio Rev. Code § 305.12. … Cobb v. Contract Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir. 2006). In summary, Smith v.

Gentry v. the Renal Network

636 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2009

Frank v. … Plaintiff also alleges that the termination of her treatment was in violation of EMTALA. 1 In any event, the statute of *617 limitations applies across the board.

Showman v. Q Corporate Holdings, LLC

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

No. 41-2); slides used for a board meeting (Doc. No. 41-3); and an organizational chart (Doc. No. 41-4). … Wolfe v. Cont’l Cas.

Anderson v. Kohberger

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

Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). The Court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against defendants on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. See Beaudett v. … See Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Ath. Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008); see also Scheid v.

R.S. v. Lucas County Children Services

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 8, 2023

Defendants West, Hickey, Von Sacken, Mowery, Lucas County Children Services and the Board of Commissioners of Lucas County, and Board member Laura Lloyd-Jenkins filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings seeking dismissal … (citing Scott v. First S. Nat’l Bank, 936 F.3d 509, 522 (6th Cir. 2019)); see also Radvansky v.

Kelley Island Lime & Transport Co. v. City of Cleveland

47 F. Supp. 533 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 23, 1942

Randall v. Cockran, 1 Ves.Sen. 90; Godsall v. Boldero, 9 East, 81; Irwing v. Richardson, 1 B. & Adol. 196; Case v. Davidson, 5 Maulé & Selw. 81; Clark v. Blything, 2 Barn. & Cressw. 256.” In the case of Fairgrieve v. … Railroad Co. v.

Harris v. United States of America

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 13, 2023

See Brown v. Suppes, No. 2:16- CV-13725, 2016 WL 7242146, at *2 (E.D. Mich. … Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994); Block v.

Pettrey v. Enterprise Title Agency, Inc.

241 F.R.D. 268 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 19, 2006

Thompson v. Board of Educ., 709 F.2d 1200, 1205 (6th Cir.1983). At least at this point, Plaintiffs have stated a claim and all potential class members could recover from Enterprise. … R.C. § 1345.01(A); Brown v. Liberty Clubs, Inc., 45 Ohio St.3d 191 , 543 N.E.2d 783, 786 (1989).

Scales

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 3, 2026

Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011), pro se litigants in federal court must still adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). … See, e.g., Taubman Co. v.

Lettieri v. New York State Troopers

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

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). … Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). The Court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against defendants on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. See Bassett v. National Collegiate Ath.

Didactics Corporation v. Welch Scientific Company

291 F. Supp. 890 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 5, 1968

Title is not relinquished when freight is placed on board at Welch’s Skokie, Illinois plant. … International Shoe Co. v.

Banks v. Hardyman

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 2, 2024

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990). … Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). “A complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations regarding all the material elements of some viable legal theory.” Scheid v.

Tate v. LaRose

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2021

(citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972)). “No one factor is dispositive. Rather, they are related factors that must be considered together with any other relevant circumstances.” Brown v. … Brown, 845 F.3d at 712-13. Yet, Petitioner focuses on the date the municipal court complaint was filed.

Scott, Jr. v. U.S. Department of Justice

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

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990). … Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).

Smith-Minton v. Jones

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

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198–99 (6th Cir. 1990). … Booth v. Henson, 290 Fed.

Keener v. Leonhardt

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

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). … Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).

Wilson v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 8, 2019

° It is unclear from the Amended Complaint whether she is referring to the National Labor Relations Board or her Union’s Labor Relations Board. ECF No. 5 at PageID #: 17. (1:19-CV-2238) clearly does not exist. … The Supreme Court in Ashcroft v.