Case law

Holmstrom v. Coastal Industries, Inc.

645 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 23, 1986

Burks v. Lasker, 441 U.S. 471 , 99 S.Ct. 1831 , 60 L.Ed.2d 404 (1979); Clark v. Lomas and Nettleton Financial Corp., 625 F.2d 49 (5th Cir.1980); Lewis v. Anderson, 615 F.2d 778 (9th Cir.1979); Abbey v. … Wadsworth v. Davis, 13 Ohio St. 123 (1862); Goff v. Emde, 32 Ohio App. 216 , 167 N.E. 699 (1928); McDonald v. Medical Mutual of Cleveland, 41 Ohio Misc. 158 , 324 N.E.2d 785 (1974); Rice v.

Bloedow v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

319 F. Supp. 2d 782 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 4, 2004

In Brown v. … Brown was recently relied upon by the Sixth Circuit. See Schirrick v. Butler Aviation, 25 F.3d 1050 , 1994 WL 242409, at *4 (6th Cir.1994) (TABLE, text WESTLAW).

MacMillan v. City of Rocky River

748 F. Supp. 1241 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 1990

In Izzo v. … (citing Malley v.

Richman Bros. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

114 F. Supp. 185 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 7, 1953

See also Schatte v. International Alliance, etc., 9 Cir., 182 F.2d 158 . In Rock Hill Printing & Finishing Co. v. … Watson v. Bellman, 5 Cir., 149 F.2d 890 ; Kolkin v. Gotham Sportswear, D.C., 10 F.Supp. 682 . But none of the foregoing cases are in point. Defendants also cite Davis v.

Wilson v. Fender

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2021

Finally, he appealed to the ODRC chief counsel Vencot Brown. Brown also upheld the RIB decision. Plaintiff asserts that he was denied due process at the disciplinary hearing. … Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996); Lawler v.

Deryck v. Akron City School District

633 F. Supp. 1180 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 25, 1986

See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). … Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , —-—, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1491-92 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985).

Kugelman v. PVF Capital Corp.

972 F. Supp. 2d 993 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 9, 2013

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3); United Mine Workers of Am. v. … V). For instance, plaintiff alleges: "[T]he Proxy Statement fails to disclose ... [w]hy the Board (or Sandler O’Neill) decided to contact Bank B to gauge its interest in a potential transaction!)]” (Am.

Morgan Adhesives Co. v. Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc.

574 F. Supp. 832 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 1983

Orthopedic Equipment Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1383-84 (Fed.Cir.1983). Accord Brown-Bridge Mills, Inc. v. Eastern Fine Paper, Inc., 700 F.2d 759, 767 (1st Cir. 1983); American Can Co. v. … The CCPA affirmed the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals, which sustained the examiner's rejection of Morgan’s claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ("obviousness"). 4 .

McSweeney v. United States

338 F. Supp. 350 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 21, 1971

See Winters v. United States, 281 F.Supp. 289 (E.D.N.Y.1968). … Schatten v. United States, 419 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1969), Hollingsworth v. Balcom, 441 F.2d 419 (6th Cir. 1971).

United States v. Busacca

739 F. Supp. 370 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 23, 1990

In Swistock v. Jones, 884 F.2d 755, 759 (3rd Cir.1989), the court found that predicate acts over a period of more than a year were sufficient to show continuity. In Menasco v. … United States v. National Dairy Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 32 , 83 S.Ct. 594, 597 , 9 L.Ed.2d 561 (1963); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 , 102 S.Ct. 3348, 3361 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982).

Reed v. Fawick Airflex Co.

86 F. Supp. 822 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 1949

. § 160 the National Labor Relations Board is empowered to prevent unfair labor practices. The Boards are authorized to petition the Courts of Appeals for enforcement of their orders under 29 U.S.C.A. § 160 (e). … In Amazon Cotton Mill Co. v.

Kourouma

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

June 15, 2018) (citing Howard, 932 F. 2d at 509) (explaining courts should not have to do “[a] reexamination of the exact same argument that was presented to the Magistrate Judge” absent specific objections); Brown v. … Brown, 2022 WL 2816266, at *2. I.

Sherwin-Williams Co. v. JP International Hardware, Inc.

988 F. Supp. 2d 815 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 13, 2013

Future Lawn, Inc. v. … Co. v.

Commission House Drivers, Helpers, & Employee's Union, Local 400 v. Teamsters Joint Council No. 41

595 F. Supp. 574 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 24, 1984

In Finnegan v. … Similarly, in Cehaich v.

Paine & Williams Co. v. Trump Products Co.

18 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 5, 1935

In Drake Castle Pressed Steel Lug Co. v. … Co. v. American Prismatic Light Co. (C.C.A.) 142 F. 454 ; Fry v. Rookwood Pottery Co. (C.C.) 90 F. 494 . Ryan v.

Miller v. Biltz

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

Henry; Chief Legal Counsel, Vencot Brown; and fellow inmate, Logan Pocock. … The board considered Lieutenant Thrasher’s conduct report and confidential informants’ statements.

Quilter v. Voinovich

794 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 31, 1992

(the Board). … While this court is not required to abstain from these issues, Davis v.

United States v. Moceri

359 F. Supp. 431 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 9, 1973

Ed. 543 ], that the proceeding is more a spectacle (Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 726 , 83 S.Ct. 1417, 1419 , 10 L.Ed.2d 663 ) or trial by ordeal (Brown v. … As was stated in United States v. Brown, 425 F.2d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 1970): “Denial of pretrial discovery of Jencks Act statements of prospective government witnesses did not offend the Constitution.”

Quilter v. Voinovich

912 F. Supp. 1006 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 11, 1995

In Miller v. … In Armour v.

Butler v. Coitsville Township Police, Department

93 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 17, 2000

.”); Hancock v. … .”); Barber v.