Case law

Martin v. Bennett

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 2022

Thus, in evaluating whether a constitutional right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, courts “must examine the particular situation that [the defendant officers] confronted and ask whether the law … clearly established that their conduct was unlawful.”

Vanko v. Finley

440 F. Supp. 656 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 1977

No. 93-391, 88 Stat. 768 (1974), and the commerce, due process, equal protection, and privileges and immunities clauses of the United States Constitution. … RTA therefore clearly meets and surpasses the UMTA’s first example of section 16(a) “special efforts.” The UMTA’s third example of section 16(a) compliance is also met on this record.

Re/Max International, Inc. v. Realty One, Inc.

924 F. Supp. 1474 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 1996

The Court finds that defendants have established the existence of a qualified privilege in this ease. The communications went toward a legitimate interest, i.e., retaining their agents. … The testimony they provide is from Re/Max agents who clearly were not dissuaded from associating with Re/Max.

Bremiller v. Cleveland Psychiatric Institute

195 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 29, 2000

Lastly, the court found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on BreMiller’s procedural due process claims but were not entitled to qualified immunity on her equal protection or substantive due process claims … In that same order, the court denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of this court’s ruling that the named defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity regarding Plaintiffs substantive due process claims.

Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell

340 F. Supp. 2d 815 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 20, 2004

(B) The appropriate State or local election official shall establish a free access system (such as a toll-free telephone number or an Internet website) that any individual who casts a provisional ballot may access to discover … This is not the same as telling every voter entitled to vote provisionally, as § 15482(a)(1) so plainly and clearly requires, that he or she is entitled to do so.

Coleman v. Hunter

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 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. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … 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

McFadden v. R&R Engine & MacHine Co.

102 F. Supp. 2d 458 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 30, 2000

R & R clearly exercised control over plan assets, so it was a plan fiduciary. … That the first prong is not true is clearly revealed by the documentary evidence.

Sherman v. American Cyanamid Co.

996 F. Supp. 719 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 26, 1998

paradigm, the evidence which establishes the prima facie case is extremely important. … To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection.

Howe v. City of Akron

789 F. Supp. 2d 786 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2011

Gerrish, 547 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir.2008) (“even if a defendant raises qualified immunity at summary judgment, *799 the issue is waived on appeal if not pressed in a Rule 50(a) motion”). … Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 304 (6th Cir.2010) (qualified-immunity claim waived). The case the defendant cites in support of its position on the waiver issue is Paschal v.

Martin v. Smith

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 22, 2023

The ODRC Bureau of Classification and Reception informed Plaintiff that he does not qualify for transfer. … An action has no arguable basis in law when a Defendant is immune from suit or when a Plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

Rone v. Fireman

473 F. Supp. 92 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 18, 1979

Such requirement must be Interpreted to mean qualified staff in sufficient numbers. … He observed that: They [the bureau] were clearly giving them the benefit of the doubt regarding their potential for employment.

Hudson v. City of Cleveland Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 6, 2025

Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 271 (6th Cir. 1984) (acting in excess of authority does not preclude immunity). Here, neither exception to absolute immunity applies. … Plaintiff has not established that they acted clearly outside of the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts over which they preside. Judges John P. O’Donnell, Mary Eileen Kilbane, Sean C.

Toldy v. Fifth Third Mortgage Co.

721 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 29, 2010

Fifth Third Financial clearly fits in this category. Furthermore, relevant definitions under 12 U.S.C. § 2602 support this construction. … Therefore, the defendants cannot establish that the “thing of value” requirement is unfulfilled as a matter of law. 2.

Gruter Foundation, Inc. v. Bowen

652 F. Supp. 245 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 22, 1986

Gruter qualifies as an intermediate care facility which provides services funded under Ohio’s Medicaid program. … Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 328 , 96 S.Ct. at 899 , but he is clearly not waiving in this case.

Granada Investments, Inc. v. DWG Corp.

717 F. Supp. 533 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 13, 1989

Tidelands Capital Corp., 438 F.Supp. 684, 688 (N.D.Ala.1977). 3 The burden is on the defendant to establish that the plaintiff is not an adequate representative of the shareholders. Shamrock Associates v. … Consequently, this Court finds that plaintiff qualifies as a fair and adequate representative of the other shareholders of DWG.

Hodory v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services

408 F. Supp. 1016 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 5, 1976

While clearly the plaintiff herein has not exhausted the administrative remedies which are available under Ohio law, in Gibson , the Supreme Court stated specifically that administrative remedies need not be exhausted where … In this regard, the defendants shall pay those past unemployment benefits which would have been provided to each otherwise qualified claimant within this class to whom such benefits were denied on the sole basis of § 4141.29

Murray v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

722 F. Supp. 1500 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 1989

Hawkins’ desire to save $10 per hour in salary for the LDC position is clearly a sound business reason to reassign personnel. … To establish that he was constructively discharged, he would have had to allege objectively burdensome conditions.

Scheideger v. Tuscarawas County Job & Family Services

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 21, 2025

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. Ct. 286, 116 L. Ed. 2d 9 (1991); Barnes v. … Plaintiff has therefore not established that these judicial officers acted clearly outside of the subject matter jurisdiction of the court over which they preside.

Stanley

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 15, 2026

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. Id. … And the remaining Defendants are immune from suit. The State of Ohio is absolutely immune from suit by operation of state sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment. Latham v. Office of Atty.

Turner v. Lucci

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

First, it is well established that judges are entitled to absolute immunity from damage actions based on their judicial acts, even if they acted erroneously or in bad faith. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). … immunity.