Case law

Wheatley v. D'Apolito

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 13, 2024

An action has no arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … All of these Defendants are absolutely immune from suit. Judges are absolutely immune from civil suits for damages that stem from decisions they made while presiding over a case. Mireles v.

Shinholster v. Akron Auto. Ass'n, Inc.

711 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 11, 1989

Plaintiff was obviously qualified for the position she held for eight years. … Clearly plaintiff has not shown the extreme and outrageous conduct required to establish the intentional or reckless infliction of severe emotional distress under Ohio law. Yeager v.

Jama v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

962 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 19, 2013

Finally, USCIS has determined that you have also failed to establish your own claim of well founded fear of persecution of your own merits in order to qualify you for refugee status within the meaning of section 101(a)(42 … Neither Jama’s Complaint nor his Brief in Opposition clearly articulates a substantive due process claim. .

Johnson v. Zurz

596 F. Supp. 39 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 30, 1984

Thus, the fourteenth amendment is clearly implicated and the Court must address what process will protect plaintiffs’ rights. … C 82-1534A, and noting that the claims of Mitchell establish his membership in the class defined above, plaintiff Mitchell’s motion for summary judgment is also granted.

Ashtabula County Medical Center v. Thompson

191 F. Supp. 2d 884 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 8, 2002

First, it begs the question by assuming that ACMC qualifies as a new provider under the terms of the regulation. … The question is whether a second, new institution — a "new provider” — has come into existence, and in the court’s final hypothetical, one clearly has.

Davis v. Rockwell International Corp.

596 F. Supp. 780 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 18, 1984

Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution establishes the groundwork for the OWCA. … Code § 4123.95, which has been termed “clearly of assistance in determining the scope of employer immunity.” Blankenship et al. v.

Williamson v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

589 F. Supp. 1051 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 8, 1984

Testimony of both plaintiff’s and defendant’s witnesses, however, clearly demonstrated that a conflict existed between the plaintiff and his supervisor. … Clearly, plaintiff did not produce any evidence to prove the replacement’s inferiority.

Speece v. Leaseway Transportation, Corp.

721 F. Supp. 144 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 16, 1988

Defendant’s first contention is clearly without merit. A complaint alleging violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must be brought within two years after the cause of action accrued. … A prima facie violation of O.R.C. 4207.17 is established: by showing (1) that [Plaintiff] was a member of the statutorily protected class, (2) that he was discharged, (3) that he was qualified for the position, and (4) that

Jackson v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare

319 F. Supp. 385 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 23, 1970

Applying the Regulations, the claimant clearly established that prior to the date his insured status terminated (June 30, 1957), he had a disabling impairment which was expected to last for a period of at least twelve months … This clearly implies that the condition was infectious from its inception to at least August, 1963.

Andrews v. City of Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 20, 2023

Police officers generally enjoy immunity from § 1983 claims unless a plaintiff shows both that the officer violated a plaintiff’s constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation … establish to overcome statutory immunity.

Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 23, 2023

If the Sixth Circuit analyzes the merits of the constitutional claims and reaches conclusions different from this Court, Plaintiffs’ motion does not show how that would change the qualified immunity defense. … Plaintiffs never assert that a decision in an interlocutory appeal now would change the clearly established law as of 2021, when the events at issue occurred.

Manning

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 2026

DISCUSSION Defendant contends he is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment because Plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation much less a clearly established constitutional … Use of Chemical Agent Defendant contends he is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment because Plaintiff fails to establish an Eighth Amendment violation based

McDaniel v. Digital Equipment Corp.

693 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 1988

One of the essential elements asserted by plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination is that the plaintiff was qualified for the job and performing satisfactorily. … He is comparing the general population in the area to defendants sales force rather than the appropriate qualified work force.

Eslinger v. City of Kent

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 17, 2020

or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … “Once a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden to show that qualified immunity is inappropriate.” Quigley v. Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675, 681 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Silberstein v.

Ellis, Jr. v. Mahoning County Child Support Enforcement Agency

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 18, 2025

However, he appears to claim that the child support orders are void because the state statutes establishing child support are unconstitutional. … They are immune from damages in this case.

Reid MacHinery, Inc. v. Lanzer

614 F. Supp. 2d 849 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 30, 2009

Qualified Immunity “ ‘Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting in their official capacities are protected from being sued in their individual capacities for damages if their actions did not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” DePiero v.

Curry v. Theaker

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 16, 2021

The Federal Defendants claim sovereign immunity. … An individual employee or supervisor, who does not otherwise qualify as an “employer” as defined by the statute cannot be held liable under Title VII. See Wathen v. Gen. Elec.

Matuska v. Hinckley Township

56 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 1999

To withstand defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Ma-tuska must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by establishing that: (1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the position, with or without … Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Matuska failed to establish that he is qualified for the position, with or without reasonable accommodation. 3.

Weiss v. Bowling Green State University

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2022

The individual Defendants alleged Doe failed to state a claim with respect to each of the above, and also, that each individual was entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. … These allegations “must demonstrate that each defendant [official], through his or her own individual actions, personally violated plaintiff’s rights under clearly established law.” Id.

Waseleski v. City of Brooklyn

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

Alternatively, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims fail because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at PageID #384–85). … App’x 465, 473 (6th Cir. 2018) (“In the absence of additional, onerous conditions, we cannot say the requirement to appear in court constitutes a clearly established seizure.”).