Edward J. Brennan, Jr. v. James A. Rhodes, Governor
Cases that cite this one
25 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pesta v. Cleveland State University (District Court, N.D. Ohio 2024)
- Alexander v. Miller (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 2023)
- Burns v. American Fire and Casualty Company (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 2022)
- Zillow, Inc. v. Bork (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 2022)
- Poynter v. National Casualty Company (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 2025)
- Sankari v. United States Department of State (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2025)
- Forest City Residential Management, Inc. v. Beasley (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2014)
- Hivner v. Active Electric, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2012)
- Williamson v. Rexam Beverage Can Co. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2007)
- Mlincek v. United States (In re Mlincek) (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio 2006)
- Coalition for Government Procurement v. Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (6th Cir. 2004)
- Coalition Govt Proc v. Fed Prison Indust (6th Cir. 2004)
- Marshall v. Ormet Corp. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2002)
- TCI/TKR Cable v. Johnson (6th Cir. 2002)
- Cavin v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2001)
- Ashiegbu v. Purviance (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1998)
- Berridge v. Heiser (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1997)
- City of Health, Ohio v. Ashland Oil, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1993)
- Haffey v. Taft (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1992)
- Minatsis v. Brown (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1989)
- Mid-States Aircraft Engines, Inc. v. Mize Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)
- Wirt v. Esrey (Kan. 1983)
- Pic-Walsh Freight Co. v. Cooper (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)
- Peterson v. Knutson (Minn. 1975)
- Peterson v. Knutson (Minn. 1975)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Defendants-appellees have filed a motion pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, seeking affirmance of the judgment of the District Court. The District Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
A dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is a judgment on the merits. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). Although we affirm the judgment of the District Court we deem it unnecessary to reach the merits of this case.
Plaintiff’s complaint, which was filed pro se, sought a declaration that certain sections of the Revised Code of Ohio were unconstitutional because they infringed his rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Thus, the relief sought was a declaratory judgment. Such relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201, but this section does not broaden the jurisdiction granted to the federal courts by the Constitution and statutes enacted pursuant thereto. There still must be a case or controversy before a federal *707 court can assume jurisdiction and reach the merits of a case. Alabama Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 461, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 89 L.Ed. 1725 (1945); Goodrich-Gulf Chemicals, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 376 F.2d 1015, 1017-1018 (6th Cir. 1967).
In the instant case, plaintiff has not alleged that he is in danger of being prosecuted for violating the challenged sections of the Revised Code of Ohio. Indeed, he has not even alleged that he owns a weapon which violates the terms of the sections or that he intends to procure one. In this posture, this case does not, at this time, present a case or controversy cognizable by a federal court. Cf. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 31 S.Ct. 250, 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911).
Accordingly, the motion to affirm the judgment of the District Court will be granted on the ground that the District Court lacked jurisdiction.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.