Your case is unique, but you are not alone.

About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.

  • Know your judge

    Every judge has a pattern — what they grant, what they deny, how they handle the kinds of motions your case will see.

  • Know your attorney

    See an attorney’s actual track record — case types, courts, and how they’ve performed in front of this judge before.

  • Know your court

    Every courthouse has its own rhythm — filing-to-resolution times, common dispositions, how often cases like yours settle.

Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?

How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?

AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Photo of Cuyahoga County

Court

Cuyahoga County

Ohio

View Court Profile

Case Information

Filed 2025-02-21
Status INACTIVE
Type Miscellaneous Other
Docket 58 entries

Parties

Plaintiff Mariah Crenshaw
Defendant Shawn L Howard Sr
Photo of Hon. William T McGinty

Judge

Hon. William T McGinty

Cuyahoga County (OH)

Ohio

View Judge Profile

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. CASE FILED: AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY, COMPLAINT
  2. /// THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO \\\ CASE NO. 2025-0893 ENTRY
  3. COURT COST ASSESSED MARIAH CRENSHAW BILL AMOUNT 177.56 PAID AMOUNT 0 AMOUNT DUE 177.56
  4. The court dismisses Crenshaw v. Howard, 8th Dist. No. 115253 for lack of jurisdiction. In State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 2008-Ohio-263, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the failure of a vexatious litigator to seek leave to appeal within the thirty-day time period to file an appeal renders the court of appeals patently and unambiguously without jurisdiction to proceed. R.C. 2323.52(F)(2). In the present case, the relevant rulings were made on May 23, 2025, and the appellant, who was declared a vexatious litigator, has not moved for leave to proceed as a vexatious litigator, within the thirty-day window for an appeal. The Supreme Court s declarations on jurisdiction override any allowances attempted by the lower courts. Appellant to pay costs. Notice issued.
  5. -------------------- NOTICE OF APPEAL -------------------- CA NO. 115253 NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PLTF. APPELLANT W/A 9A PRAECIPE AND DOCKETING STATEMENT ON THE REGULAR CALENDAR.
  6. MOTION FILED FOR P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 APPELLANTS' MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF APRIL 23, 2024 VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR JUDGMENT PENDING OHIO SUPREME COURTS' DECISION ON THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION CASE NO: 2025-0545
  7. NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED APPELLANTS' NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE EIGHTH DISTIRCT COURT OF APPEALS
  8. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FILED BY D1 SHAWN L HOWARD EDWIN V HARGATE III 0017239 DEFENDANT HOWARD'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE FILED 61125
  9. MOTION FILED FOR P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' JUNE 11, 2025 REPLY BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO CIV. R. 11, 12(F) AND OHIO REVISED CODE 2323.51
  10. REPLY BRIEF FILED BY D1 SHAWN L HOWARD EDWIN V HARGATE III 0017239 DEFENDANT HOWARD'S REPLY BRIEF TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
  11. EXHBIT OF BRIEF FILED BY P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW, PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO MEMORANDUM CONTRA TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION OF ATTORNEY FEES FILED JUNE 4, 2025
  12. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FILED BY P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM CONTRA TO DEFENDANT SHAWN L. HOWARDS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED JUNE 4, 2025
  13. MOTION FILED FOR D1 SHAWN L HOWARD EDWIN V HARGATE III 0017239 DEFENDANT HOWARD'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
  14. JUDGMENT ENTRY(57072872) SENT BY EMAIL. TO: MARIAH CRENSHAW [email protected]
  15. JUDGMENT ENTRY(57072871) SENT BY EMAIL. TO: EDWIN V HARGATE III [email protected]
  16. JUDGMENT ENTRY. OSJ. COURT COSTS ASSESSED TO THE PLAINTIFF(S). PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 58(B), THE CLERK OF COURTS IS DIRECTED TO SERVE THIS JUDGMENT IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY CIV.R. 5(B). THE CLERK MUST INDICATE ON THE DOCKET THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES, THE METHOD OF SERVICE, AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SERVICE. NOTICE ISSUED
  17. CAPTIONED CASE BEING ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED TO JUDGE MAUREEN CLANCY (358) AND FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THIS MATTER IS HEREBY REASSIGNED AND TRANSFERRED TO THE DOCKET OF JUDGE VJ WILLIAM T MCGINTY (393) FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ACCORDING TO LAW. NOTICE ISSUED
  18. NOTICE FILED BY P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW ATTORNEY PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE TO THE COURT DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SERVED DISCOVERY
  19. REPLY BRIEF FILED BY P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFF' MEMORANDUM CONTRA TO DEFENDANT HOWARDS' MAY 7, 2025 MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' MAY 5, 2025 PLEADING
  20. MOTION FILED FOR D1 SHAWN L HOWARD EDWIN V HARGATE III 0017239 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE FILED 552025 06/04/2025 - UNKNOWN
  21. CAPTIONED CASE BEING ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOY KENNEDY (391) AND FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THIS MATTER IS HEREBY REASSIGNED AND TRANSFERRED TO THE DOCKET OF JUDGE MAUREEN CLANCY (358) FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ACCORDING TO LAW. NOTICE ISSUED
  22. MOTION FILED FOR P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' MAY 5, 2025 REPLY BRIEF TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT CIV.R. 12(B)(6) FOR CIV. R. 11, 12(F) AND ORC 2323.51 VIOLATIONS 06/04/2025 - UNKNOWN
  23. REPLY BRIEF FILED BY D1 SHAWN L HOWARD EDWIN V HARGATE III 0017239 DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 12(B)(6)
  24. NOTICE FILED BY P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW ATTORNEY PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE TO THE COURT DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SERVED DISCOVERY
  25. MOTION FILED FOR P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM CONTRA TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED MAY 3, 2025 AND MOTION TO STRIKE FOR CIV. RULE 11, 12(F), RC 2323.51 AND CIV. RULE 26 VIOLATIONS 06/04/2025 - UNKNOWN
  26. MOTION FILED FOR D1 SHAWN L HOWARD EDWIN V HARGATE III 0017239 MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER 06/04/2025 - UNKNOWN
  27. REPLY BRIEF FILED BY P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT HOWARDS MAY 2, 2025 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
  28. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FILED BY D1 SHAWN L HOWARD EDWIN V HARGATE III 0017239 DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUBMIT DISCOVERY RESPONSES
  29. MOTION FILED FOR P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PROPERLY SUBMIT RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AS REQUIRED BY OHIO CIVIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 37, AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE APRIL 29, 2025 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF SERVICE IN VIOLATION OF CIV. R. 11, 12(F) AND OHIO REVISED CODE 2323.51 06/04/2025 - UNKNOWN
  30. NOTICE FILED BY D1 SHAWN L HOWARD ATTORNEY EDWIN V HARGATE III 0017239 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, ADMISSIONS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
  31. MOTION FILED FOR P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM CONTRA TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CIVIL RULE 12(B) FILED APRIL 24, 2025 06/04/2025 - UNKNOWN
  32. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CIV.R12(B)6 06/04/2025 - UNKNOWN
  33. REPLY BRIEF FILED BY P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF TO DEFENDANT HOWARDS' OPPOSITION MOTION FILED APRIL 23, 2025
  34. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FILED BY D1 SHAWN L HOWARD EDWIN V HARGATE III 0017239 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAITIFF'S MOTION TO MOVE THE INSTANT MATTER TO MEDIATION.
  35. MOTION FILED FOR P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO MOVE THE INSTANT MATTER TO MEDIATION 06/04/2025 - UNKNOWN
  36. NOTICE FILED BY P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW ATTORNEY PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE TO THE COURT OF PLAINTIFFS' ELECTRONIC FILING ACCOUNT AND PURSUANT TO THE COURTS' APRIL 8, 2025 DIRECTIVE TO THE PLAINTIFF AS A PRO SE LITIGANT
  37. GENERAL PLEADING FILED BY P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW ATTORNEY PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO CIVIL RULE OF PROCEDURE 23(B)(3) & 26
  38. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME I.E. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PLEAD, FILED 04/02/2025, IS GRANTED. FOR GOOD CAUSE, DEFENDANT IS GRANTED LEAVE TO MOVE, ANSWER, OR OTHERWISE PLEAD TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE 04/30/2025. CMC BY PHONE SET FOR 05/08/2025 AT 11:00 AM. PRO SE PARTIES OR COUNSEL ONLY SHALL APPEAR. PARTIES SHALL CALL THE CONFERENCE NUMBER 720.708.1090 AND ENTER ACCESS CODE 7235579# AT THE SCHEDULED TIME. PARTIES SHALL BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS DISCOVERY PROGRESS AND SCHEDULING MATTERS, ETC. PLAINTIFF CRENSHAW IS HEREBY ON NOTICE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL, THE COURT WILL ASSUME ANY UNREPRESENTED PARTY WILL BE PROCEEDING TO TRIAL PRO SE. PRO SE LITIGANTS SHALL BE HELD TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARD: "IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT PRO SE LITIGANTS ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCEDURES AND THAT THEY ARE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD AS LITIGANTS WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL." STATE EX REL. FULLER V. MENGEL, 100 OHIO ST.3D 352, 2003-OHIO-6448, 10 (CITATION OMITTED). IN ADDITION, "PRO SE LITIGANTS ... CANNOT EXPECT NOR DEMAND SPECIAL TREATMENT FROM THE JUDGE WHO IS TO SIT AS IMPARTIAL ARBITER." MALIZIA V. MALIZIA, 9TH DIST. NO. 22565, 2005-OHIO-5186, 20 (CITATION OMITTED). "[THE] PRO SE LITIGANT IS TO BE TREATED THE SAME AS ONE TRAINED IN THE LAW AS FAR AS THE REQUIREMENT TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL LAW AND THE ADHERENCE TO COURT RULES." TATE V. OWENS STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, 10TH DIST. FRANKLIN NO. 10AP-1201, 2011-OHIO-3452, 15 (CITATION OMITTED). NOTICE ISSUED
  39. NOTICE FILED BY P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW ATTORNEY PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE TO THE COURT DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SERVED DISCOVERY
  40. REPLY BRIEF FILED BY P1 MARIAH CRENSHAW PRO SE 9999999 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' APRIL 2, 2025 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PLEAD & OBJECTION TO GRANTING ADDITIONAL TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD
  41. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PLEAD
  42. SUMS COMPLAINT(56318201) SENT BY REGULAR MAIL SERVICE. TO: SHAWN L HOWARD SR 1757 WAYSIDE AVENUE CLEVELAND, OH 44112 ANSWER DATE: 04/04/2025
  43. SUMMONS E-FILE COPY COST
  44. WRIT FEE
  45. REQUEST FOR SERVICE FILED PLAINTIFFS' INSTRUCTION FOR SERVICE ORDINARY MAIL TO DEFENDANT HOWARD
  46. CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NO. 56205741 RETURNED 3/3/2025 FAILURE OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANT HOWARD SR/SHAWN/L - ATTEMPTED NOT KNOWN NOTICE MAILED TO PLAINTIFF(S) ATTORNEY
  47. SUMS COMPLAINT(56205741) SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL. TO: SHAWN L HOWARD SR 1757 WAYSIDE AVENUE CLEVELAND, OH 44112
  48. SUMMONS E-FILE COPY COST
  49. WRIT FEE
  50. JUDGE NANCY MARGARET RUSSO ASSIGNED (RANDOM); RE-FILED CASE, REASSIGNED TO ORIGINAL JUDGE, JUDGE JOY KENNEDY
  51. JUDGE NANCY MARGARET RUSSO ASSIGNED (RANDOM)
  52. LEGAL RESEARCH
  53. LEGAL AID
  54. COURT SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
  55. COMPUTER FEE
  56. CLERK'S FEE
  57. LEGAL NEWS
  58. AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY, FILED

See the patterns behind this case

The free view above tells you who’s in the room. The detailed reports below show how the room tends to behave — using the same public records lawyers quietly rely on before every hearing.

  • Judge Report

    How this judge has ruled in cases like yours — case mix, motion outcomes, and historical docket. Judges set the floor of what’s possible in your courtroom.

  • Attorney vs Judge Report

    Everything in the Judge Report, plus how your attorney has actually performed in front of this judge. Attorneys move you off the floor — or don’t.

One-time payment, no subscription. Reports describe past public court activity — they don’t predict outcomes and they aren’t legal advice.

Get Free Case Details

Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.

By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.

Full Analytics Report

  • Complete case narrative
  • Judge details and rulings
  • Case disposition and outcome
  • All docket entries
  • Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase

Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In

Featured in Forbes, Bloomberg, The New Yorker, Above The Law, American Bar Association, and more