Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,217 results
1.14s
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 2026
Because Plaintiff does not clearly state a Step Two argument in her brief, that argument is not addressed herein. … First, she argues that her work as an office manager was performed too long ago to qualify as past relevant work under new Social Security Ruling 24-2p. (Id. at pp. 16-17.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 16, 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownRivera v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 4, 2021
“An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530, 110 S.Ct. 885, 107 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990). … In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the “paragraph C” criteria.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 2020
A court should only grant a preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order if the movant carries his burden of proving that the circumstances clearly warrant the extraordinary relief. Leary v. … As noted, Plaintiff is unable to establish even a prima facie case of a RFRA violation.
Cited 0 timesUnknownKopp Development Inc. v. Metrasens, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 19, 2024
In order to establish a false-advertising claim under the Lanham Act, the plaintiff must establish the following five elements: (1) “‘the defendant has made false or misleading statements of fact concerning his own product … Metrasens does not set forth the foregoing elements in its Motion, much less clearly identify which one(s) it is challenging on summary judgment. (Doc. No. 42, PageID# 1312-15.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 18, 2023
. § 2254, a petitioner must show either that the state court decision (1) resulted in a decision contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States … If the Supreme Court has not addressed the petitioner’s specific claims, a reviewing district court cannot find that a state court acted contrary to, or unreasonably applied, Supreme Court precedent or clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownMcCall v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 10, 2019
Here, the ALJ clearly considered Dr. … To meet the criteria of Listing 11.14, peripheral neuropathy, Plaintiff must establish: A.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2024
Ohio Nov. 5, 2010) (“As corporations, the Defaulting Defendants are clearly not infants or incompetent persons.”)). … Specifically: For an act to qualify as “international terrorism,” it must (A) “involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life” that “are . . . or that would be a criminal violation
Cited 0 timesUnknownDeCaro v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2022
“An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990). … Rather, an ALJ’s “decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent
Cited 0 timesUnknownTuttle v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 20, 2024
We may establish only a primary headache disorder as an MDI. … In that the medical record does not appear to support a primary headache disorder, and thus cannot qualify as an MDI, the ALJ was correct in not identifying Mr. Tuttle’s headaches as an MDI.
Cited 0 timesUnknownM.F. v. Cleveland Metropolitan School District
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 30, 2025
At the very least, [CMSD] was obligated to assess and evaluate whether a 1:1 aide was appropriate to offer [J.C.M.] a FAPE … The fact that [J.C.M.] was not engaging in learning activities in the absence of 1:1 support clearly … (Id. at PageID #502–03.) 15 CMSD also argues that Plaintiff overstates the significance of the emails, that Baskin has not been qualified as an expert, and that the emails are incomplete
Cited 0 timesUnknownRay v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 2024
She required significant redirection and reminders of established rules for communication. (Id.) … To qualify, a child recipient must also meet certain income and resource limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1100, 416.1201.
Cited 0 timesUnknown566 F. Supp. 2d 652 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 13, 2008
Frankly, that was a way for us to try to give some money to female-owned organizations that did not qualify under the state minority laws. … On July 2, 2002, Bye-Laws governing the ADF were established.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2024
The effect is all the more objectionable when the ignored attorney is an associate who was not a party to the agreement establishing the restriction. … Div. 2000) (“partners may not be restrained from inviting qualified personnel to change firms with them.”). On balance, the advisory opinions relied on by Minc are not persuasive.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 24, 2024
Even if Plaintiff could demonstrate that these determinations were clearly erroneous, he cannot demonstrate any prejudice. … Ohio Feb. 7, 2024) (“In Ohio, ‘[e]quitable tolling is only available in compelling cases which justify a departure from established procedure.’” (quoting Roach v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBarrio Bros, LLC v. Revolucion, LLC
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2021
The Court agrees that Defendants clearly implemented the same concept at Condado that was already in place at Barrio: a Mexican-themed, build-your-own tacos restaurant. … These exhibits are of no moment because Plaintiffs fail to establish that their purported trade dress is distinctive.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHerndon v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 3, 2021
Delcour opined the evidence did not establish the presence of “C” criteria. (Id.) Dr. … In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the “paragraph C” criteria.
Cited 0 timesUnknownArends v. Family Solutions of Ohio, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 2020
However, “motions to strike are disfavored and granted only where the allegations are clearly immaterial to the controversy or would prejudice the movant.” Frisby v. Keith D. Weiner & Assocs. Co., LPA, 669 F. … Once the threshold requirement of establishing a common question of law or fact is met, the decision to consolidate rests in the sound discretion of the district court. Gamboa v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHelwig v. Concentrix Corporation
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 2024
G iven these myriad variations, it seems to us that the plaintiffs’ claims clearly lacked commonality.” Id. at 389. … “To meet the predominance requirement, a plaintiff must establish that issues subject to generalized proof and applicable to the class as a whole predominate over those issues that are subject to only individualized proof
Cited 0 timesUnknownAnderson v. Commisioner of Social Security
District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 31, 2022
“An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530, 110 S.Ct. 885, 107 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990). … As noted, an “ALJ need not discuss listings that the applicant clearly does not meet.” Sheeks, 544 F. App'x at 641.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna