Case law

Hammond v. Brown

323 F. Supp. 326 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 28, 1971

In either case, their action exhibited an irresponsible act clearly not in the best interests of Kent State University. … Appointed Special Counsel are directed to test by motion to dismiss the defense of sovereign immunity.

Howe v. Hull

874 F. Supp. 779 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 25, 1994

Clearly, Congress consciously decided to exclude physicians from the parameters of this private cause of action. … Similarly, to establish a prima facie case under the FRA the plaintiff must show a) the plaintiff has a disability; b) plaintiff was otherwise qualified to participate in the program; c) defendants discriminated against plaintiff

Taylor v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

264 F.R.D. 281 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2007

Therefore, a clearly defined class exists, of which the named Plaintiffs are members. 2. Rule 23 Generally After a class has been identified, Plaintiffs must establish that the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met. … These questions of fact are common and would clearly advance the case under Plaintiffs’ legal theory. Furthermore, the case contains common questions of law.

United States v. Traficant

558 F. Supp. 996 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 4, 1983

Clearly, the major purpose of the Act is to combat organized crime. Id. at 2157. … American Trucking and its progeny are clearly distinguishable from cases such as Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 , 98 S.Ct. 2279 , 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978).

XXL of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Broadview Heights

341 F. Supp. 2d 825 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 20, 2004

immunity did not protect the named individual defendants from liability. … Thus it cannot be said that the law was clearly established when the city officials took the action that led to this complaint. Memo, at 2-3 (citations omitted).

United States v. Brandt

139 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 29, 1955

That this was in no way related to a purpose to discriminate is clearly shown. … The present system of selecting jurors was established more than thirty years ago when the colored population of the district was very small.

Bowman v. City of Fairview Park

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 17, 2024

Fairview Park is a political subdivision that qualifies for immunity under Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.02(A)(1). … Officers Thompson and 12 Calabrese, in their individual capacities, as employees of Fairview Park, are presumed to qualify for immunity under Ohio Rev

Cold Metal Process Co. v. Republic Steel Corp.

123 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 18, 1954

Clearly, these method claims fail to point out particularly and to claim distinctly an identifiable invention; they overclaim the alleged invention; they do not properly define the limits of the sought-for monopoly. … Clearly, by this disclosure Steckel established in his original application a foundation for broader claims with respect to tension than driving the mill “principally” or “entirely” by tension, a foundation which is adequate

Hawthorne v. United States

523 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 10, 2007

The ultimate burden of showing that the levy on property was wrongful remains with the plaintiff; if that burden is not met, the standard for waiving sovereign immunity is not satisfied. McGinness v. … Hawthorne, thereby establishing the nexus between the funds and the taxpayer. The tax assessment was made on June 23, 2003. Deposits totaled $26,493.22.

Washington v. Stormer

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 6, 2023

It is well- established that judicial officers are absolutely immune from civil suits for money damages 1Plaintiff represented on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis he filed with his complaint in this case that … In addition to immunity, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal because it is clearly time-barred.

Davis v. Brudzinski

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 22, 2025

; (3) qualified immunity; and (4) the Fremont Police Department and the Sandusky County Jail are not sui juris. … To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must assert that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

Mukaabya

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2026

App’x 972, 974 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Personal involvement is necessary to establish section 1983 liability.”). … It is well established that judicial officers are generally entitled to absolute immunity from civil suits for money damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991); Barnes v.

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. General Motors Corp.

415 F. Supp. 2d 769 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 2006

Clearly, there is no requirement that the vehicle be used as any kind of permanent residence, as Newmar suggests. … Such an inference then establishes a prima facie case of defect for jury consideration, (footnote omitted).

Dawson v. Qube Corp.

6 F. Supp. 2d 677 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 18, 1998

Dawson clearly has a physical impairment substantially limiting one or more of his major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2)(A). There is also no dispute that Qube is aware of Dawson’s physical handicap. … that an ADA plaintiff is not a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’

Clinton v. Trumble

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 2025

A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … Moreover, the defendants are immune from suit. It is well established that judicial officers are generally entitled to absolute immunity from civil suits for money damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 112 S.

Larrick v. Tuscarawas County

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2023

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability under section 1983 unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known.” Harlow v. … state-law immunity defense ‘through the lens of the federal qualified immunity analysis.’”

Santucci

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

To establish a prima facie case for discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show 1) that he is disabled; 2) that he is otherwise qualified for his previous position, with or without reasonable accommodation; 3) that … qualified for a position.”

Valot v. Southeast Local School District

957 F. Supp. 991 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 1995

that defendants violated the following: (Count I) the right to petition for redress of grievances, secured by the First Amendment; (Count II) the right of access to administrative agencies, secured by the privileges and immunities … In essence, in refusing to rehire plaintiffs, the School Board merely fulfilled the expectations of future employment plaintiffs intimated were theirs when they sought to qualify for unemployment benefits.

Polderman v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

40 F. Supp. 2d 456 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 27, 1999

In order to establish her prima facie case with respect to her failure to accommodate claim Plaintiff must show: (1) that he is disabled; (2) that he is qualified for the job with or without reasonable accommodation; and … That incident clearly occurred within a year of Plaintiffs Level Two Reminder, which was issued on May 23, 1994.

Ben Yahweh v. Building Neighborhoods of Youngstown

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 6, 2024

To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must assert that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the (4:24cv671) Constitution … To establish diversity of citizenship, a plaintiff must establish that he is a citizen of one state and all of the defendants are citizens of other states. Von Dunser vy. Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071, 1072 (6th Cir.1990).