District Court, N.D. Ohio — appointed by John F. Kennedy
Tomlinson v. McCutcheon
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1982-12-23 · cited 4×
This case involves a diversity jurisdiction lawsuit by Michigan plaintiffs (injured truck driver Robert Tomlinson, his wife seeking loss of consortium, and truck owner Roger Harris) against Ohio defendants (drunk driver Robert McCutcheon and tavern owner Charles Taylor) for damages from a rear-end collision on the Ohio Turnpike caused by McCutcheon after drinking at Taylor's bar. Taylor moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ohio law imposed no duty or liability on him for serving beer to an intoxicated patron who later injured third parties. The court denied the motion, holding that R.C. § 4301.22(B) (prohibiting sales of alcohol to intoxicated persons) creates negligence per se liability for a tavern keeper when such service proximately causes injury to others, as the statute was enacted to protect the general public's health, safety, and welfare. The ruling was based on Ohio Supreme Court decisions such as Mason v. Roberts and Taggart, which recognized that liability for tavern owners can arise under this statute independent of blacklisting provisions in R.C. § 4399.01.
torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
MacKo v. Byron
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1982-10-01 · cited 4×
In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiffs Joanne Macko, Helen Merteneit, and John Szabo sued the City of Willoughby Hills and various officials, claiming they faced criminal indictments and arrests in retaliation for circulating recall petitions against the mayor and council members, which implicated their First Amendment rights. The defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment, prompting the court to review the record facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, including the rejection of the petitions, a failed mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court, selective indictments for petition-related offenses that were later dropped, and the absence of charges against others who committed similar acts. The court outlined the legal standards for summary judgment under Rule 56, addressed claims involving alleged conspiracy and discriminatory prosecution under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, and considered issues such as res judicata and the sufficiency of pleadings after extensive discovery.
civil rightsfree speechelectionscriminal law
Floyd v. Marshall
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1982-05-11 · cited 1×
This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Edward Ted Floyd, who was convicted in Ohio state court of twelve counts of aggravated robbery plus one count each of rape and kidnapping, resulting in a sentence of 15 to 150 years. After his state appeals were denied, Floyd raised multiple claims in federal court, including that identification testimony was tainted by suggestive police conduct, that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge certain evidence or seek a separate trial, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The court first addressed the exhaustion requirement under Rose v. Lundy, concluding that the unexhausted identification claim had no available state post-conviction remedy because it did not render the conviction void or voidable and could not be raised via delayed appeal. On the merits, the court rejected all claims, finding that counsel had in fact opposed joinder, that the identification and other evidence was not constitutionally defective, and that a rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on victim identifications and recovered items. The petition was therefore denied in full.
criminal lawprocedurefederal power
Robson v. Eva's Super Market, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1982-05-04 · cited 17×
This case involves a former meat department employee who resigned and sued her employer and two supervisors, alleging sexual harassment through repeated unwanted advances, comments, and physical contact, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, along with pendent state tort claims for emotional distress. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending there were no material facts in dispute and that the claims were legally insufficient. The court denied the motion after reviewing the record, including depositions and affidavits, because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the conduct created a hostile work environment under Title VII and whether the supervisors' actions supported claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Ohio law, which permits such damages when conduct is wanton or outrageous.
civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability
Brunn v. City of Cleveland
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1981-11-19 · cited 3×
The case involved plaintiff Mary Ann Brunn, a civil service employee in the City of Cleveland's utilities office, who was summarily suspended for five days after allegedly directing a racial slur at a coworker. She sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the suspension deprived her of a property interest in continued employment without due process and caused stigmatization. The court granted leave to amend the complaint to allege falsity of the charges and denied the city's motion to dismiss the property-interest claim. It reasoned that city charter and civil service rules created a legitimate expectation of suspension only for cause, establishing a state-law property interest, and that due process requires at minimum notice and an opportunity to respond before such a suspension. The stigma claim was addressed as moot pending amendment.
civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure
United States v. Leaseway Transportation Corp.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1981-10-15 · cited 3×
The case involved the Internal Revenue Service petitioning to enforce a summons under 26 U.S.C. § 7604 requiring Leaseway Transportation Corp. to produce internal audit reports from its subsidiaries as part of an audit of consolidated tax returns for 1975-1978. The court granted enforcement of the summons after a hearing. It found that the IRS had followed proper procedures in a large-case audit, the requested reports were not already in the agency's possession, and Leaseway had not shown an improper purpose. The core reasoning was that the reports may be relevant because they contained references to transactions, timing adjustments, correcting entries, and record-keeping practices that could shed light on the correctness of the tax returns.
taxesfederal powerbusiness & regulatory