Case law

Baez v. Johnson

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 27, 2019

To establish deliberate indifference, the plaintiff ordinarily “‘must show prior instances of unconstitutional conduct demonstrating that the [municipality] has ignored a history of abuse and was clearly on notice that … The Ohio Revised Code establishes a three-tier analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability: First, R.C. 2744.02(

Dixon v. University of Toledo

638 F. Supp. 2d 847 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 31, 2009

Defendants believed that the University, as a state instrumentality, is immune from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, and that the University is not a “person” under the statute. … Dixon alleges that when she was terminated, a man who was grossly under qualified for her job replaced her. (Doc No. 20, ¶ 33).

Sullivan v. O'Malley

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 19, 2024

A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact where it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … Immunity Finally, all of the Defendants are immune from suits for damages.

Childrens & Parents Rights Ass'n of Ohio, Inc. v. Sullivan

787 F. Supp. 724 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 1991

The goals of the program as a whole included: location of obligors, establishment of paternity, establishment of support, and enforcement of support. … The discretion belongs to Congress unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment.” Id. at 598 , 107 S.Ct. at 30 (internal quotes omitted).

Barnette v. Cantalamessa

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 29, 2021

Additionally, Judge Sweeney and Prosecutors Gains and Cantalamessa are immune from suit. It is well established that judges are generally entitled to absolute immunity from civil suits for money damages. Mireles v. … Therefore, Plaintiff has not established that Judge Sweeney acted clearly outside of the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court over which the judge presides.

McAllister v. Kent State University

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 16, 2020

Moreover, even if there were any ambiguity, the individual Defendants resolved it by raising the defense of qualified immunity in their Answer, indicating they were aware of their potential individual liability. … Against this backdrop, the Parker court found that “[t]his reporting requirement does not clearly extend to reports that the District mishandled the suspected child abuse.” Id.

Hickman v. Kreisher, et al.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 14, 2025

Plaintiff has also not established, nor is there any indication, that Magistrate Roston acted clearly outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the court over which he presides. … Thus, Magistrate Roston is entitled to absolute immunity.

Cleveland Firefighters for Fair Hiring Practices v. City of Cleveland

917 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 8, 2013

Therefore, past discrimination has been established. … As noted by the Sixth Circuit in its opinion remanding this case, the Constitution clearly trumps any provisions set forth in a consent decree.

Stanich v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

259 F.R.D. 294 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 26, 2009

First, the Plaintiffs’ theory is established by the complaint, not Paul Lonardo’s deposition. Second, Lonardo’s testimony clearly indicates that he understands and is pursuing the partial disclosure theory. … Travelers has not established that Mr.

Settles v. Malak

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 8, 2021

Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011). … violation; and (2) we assess whether the right was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Grosjean v. First Energy Corp.

196 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 20, 2002

was taken and plaintiff was not qualified; and 3) plaintiff cannot prove that defendants’ articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons were a pretext for discrimination. … The policy states that written documentation is required, but the language clearly does not require supervisors to give such documentation to employees.

Dekany v. City of Akron, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 9, 2023

newly-discovered facts were in existence at the time of trial or other dispositive proceeding, that the movant exercised due diligence in obtaining the information and that the evidence is material and controlling and clearly … Accordingly, Paull’s affidavit does not qualify as “newly-discovered evidence” that might entitle Dekany to relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(2).

In Re Meridia Products Liability Litigation

328 F. Supp. 2d 791 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 7, 2004

Restating, Schwartz is qualified to render opinion on certain pharmacological effects of Meridia, but he is not qualified to testify regarding whether these effects are capable of causing com-pensable injury. … Clearly, such evidence conceals too much to speak directly to the issue of causation.

Glassford v. Brito

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 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, Glassford must assert that a person acting under color of state law deprived her of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

A-T-O, Inc. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

456 F. Supp. 545 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 14, 1978

The PBGC’s decision letter summarizes A-T-O’s arguments and states a reason for the denial which is clearly consistent with the statute. Nor does A-T-0 ever argue otherwise. … Clearly, the language of these sections conditions the amount of the pension benefits upon a sufficiency of assets, and thus the provisions fall within “I” of section 1.411(a)-4.

Hartman v. Medina County Sheriff's Office

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 24, 2023

established federal law. … But those two trials resulted in reversals upon appeal and, therefore, they do not qualify as “convictions” which Hartman may challenge in habeas corpus proceedings. Carter, 755 F.2d at 1129.

Blue v. Ryan

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 2019

Part D of Title IV is titled “Child Support and Establishment of Paternity.” … A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised upon an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

Blue v. Wendy R

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 4, 2020

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. … Plaintiff describes Defendant as a “BWC Case Specialist” which qualifies her as an officer or employee of the State of Ohio. She is not a debt collector under the terms of the FDCPA.

Trebbles v. The State of Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 11, 2021

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

Deal v. Jackson

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2024

As such, the Court finds that allegations in the pleading are not sufficient to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction.’ Ill. … Defendant Jackson filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) arguing that the allegations are implausible, the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that Jackson is entitled to qualified immunity