Case law

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.

Wolfe v. Ohio Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 19, 2022

While there are three well-established exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity: (1) congressional abrogation; (2) waiver by the State; and (3) “a suit against a state official seeking … immunity.

Reich v. Hall Holding Co., Inc.

990 F. Supp. 955 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 10, 1998

The ESOP, upon being established, would borrow money which it would use to purchase qualifying employer securities. … Congress clearly intended the fiduciaries’ strict duties of care and loyalty to safeguard such transactions from the danger of self-dealing.

Koppinger v. American Interiors, Inc.

295 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 5, 2003

Plaintiff was responsible for the computer system from end to end, a computer system that was clearly integral to defendant’s general business operations. … However, if the employee performs so much manual work (other than office work) that he cannot be said to be basically a "white-collar” employee he does not qualify for exemption as a bona fide administrative employee, even

Rudner v. Abbott Laboratories

664 F. Supp. 1100 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 18, 1987

Implied antitrust immunity is not favored. United States v. National Assn. … Clearly, then, McKesson’s motion as to only sales to the retail pharmacy and plaintiffs does not go far enough and must be denied.

Valance

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

The Court of Appeals concluded the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. … Based on the Complaint’s sparse allegations, it cannot be plausibly inferred that the use of force was objectively unreasonable or that Defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Andress v. United States

198 F. Supp. 371 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 27, 1961

“if the employee reaches retirement age the payments no longer qualify.” … Moreover, the evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff’s decedent would have been at work during the period involved had he not been ill; and, as there was no evidence that if he had recovered he would not have returned

Catley v. Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 11, 2023

Code § 4112.02(A) because Catley cannot establish that he is a “qualified individual” under the ADA.5 The ADA makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability … For all the aforementioned reasons, Catley has failed to establish that he was otherwise qualified for the pipefitter position because he failed to meet Energy Harbor’s legally mandated fitness-for-duty requirements.

Elida Local School District Board of Education v. Erickson

252 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 26, 2003

In August, 2001, a “group of qualified professionals” and the parent— the August, 2001, MFE team — met to determine Susan’s eligibility. There is no evidence that the August, 2001, MFE team was not “qualified.” … The Supreme Court has clearly repudiated the proposition that grades can serve as the IDEA’S litmus test.

Welsh v. United States

210 F. Supp. 597 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 5, 1962

But the Regulation itself clearly indicates that if it is customary within the trade or profession to undertake such an education, the taxpayer will ordinarily be considered to have undertaken the education for the purposes … Welsh took these courses for the purpose of maintaining and improving the skills required by him as a Special Agent, or, whether he took these courses for personal reason, among those being to qualify himself to go into the

Wolf Creek Collieries Co. v. GEX Kentucky, Inc.

127 B.R. 374 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 4, 1991

The clearly erroneous standard was explained by the Supreme Court in United States v. … The test for whether a claim qualifies for payment as an administrative expense is set forth in In re Mammoth Mart, Inc., 536 F.2d 950 (1st Cir.1976).

Turner v. Grande Pointe Healthcare Community

631 F. Supp. 2d 896 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 10, 2007

If the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case, summary judgment on an EPA claim in the defendant’s favor is appropriate “only if the record shows that [the defendant] established the [affirmative] defense so clearly that … In the Sixth Circuit, to qualify as a “factor other than sex” for the purposes of establishing an affirmative defense to an EPA claim, the factor must have been, “at a minimum, ... adopted for a legitimate business reason

Thomas v. Ametech

464 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 2006

Plaintiff offers a Five Year Certificate of Appreciation given to him by Defendant to show he was qualified (Thomas Aff., Ex. A). … However, a comparison of Cummins’ situation to Plaintiffs clearly shows they were not similarly situated in all relevant respects. Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 352 .

Hands v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

282 F. Supp. 2d 645 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 27, 2003

Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981), it must nonetheless “clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiffs rejection.” … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, Hands must show, by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) an adverse employment action; (8) that she was qualified for

Howe v. Brown

30 Ohio Misc. 19 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 1970

There can be no doubt either of the historic function of the states to establish, on a nondiscriminatory basis, and in accordance with the Constitution, other qualifications for the exercise of the franchise.” … This activity clearly has constitutional overtones, and it is appropriate that it be examined under a standard requiring exacting scrutiny.

Szarell v. Schaffer

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 29, 2020

“Tt is well established that judges and other court officers enjoy absolute immunity from suit on claims arising out of the performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions.” Foster v. … Szarell’s allegations against Magistrate Schaffer clearly pertain to conduct occurring during the performance of the Magistrate’s official judicial functions as to which the Magistrate is absolutely immune from a damages

Doe v. Foster

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 12, 2019

A prosecutor performing investigative or administrative functions, by contrast, may only assert a qualified immunity defense. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 493, 495, 111 S. Ct. 1934, 114 L. … for immunity under Ohio Rev.

O'Donnell v. City of Cleveland

148 F. Supp. 3d 621 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 8, 2015

Civil Rights Violation Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their clearly established rights, privileges, and immunities as secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. … “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract neéd or desire for it. He must have more than a Unilateral expéctatíon of it.

Hatcher v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 27, 2021

Consequently, examination of a complaint for a plausible claim for relief is undertaken in conjunction with the “well-established principle that ‘Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement … See, e.g., McCormick, 693 F.3d at 691 (affirming dismissal of a § 1981 claim against a public university because a public university qualifies as an arm of the state and, thus, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment