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 2025-02-24
Status ACTIVE
Type Admin. Appeals Other
Docket 33 entries

Parties

Plaintiff Adam Wallace|Taylor Wallace
Defendant Cuyahoga County Division Of Children And Family Services|Cuyahoga County
Photo of Hon. TIMOTHY MCCORMICK

Judge

Hon. TIMOTHY MCCORMICK

Cuyahoga County (OH)

Ohio

View Judge Profile

Lawyers

Docket Entries

  1. CASE FILED: COMPLAINT
  2. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF
  3. USPS RECEIPT NO. 59021640 DELIVERED BY USPS 01/06/2026 CUYAHOGA COUNTY DIVISION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES PROCESSED BY COC 01/14/2026.
  4. NOTICE FILED BY PLAINTIFF(S) ADAM WALLACE(P1) and TAYLOR WALLACE(P2) ATTORNEY RICHARD E HACKERD 0055306 NOTICE OF SERVICE
  5. DEPOSIT AMOUNT PAID RICHARD E HACKERD
  6. AMENDED COMPLAINT $75 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
  7. SUMS COMPLAINT(59021640) SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL. TO: CUYAHOGA COUNTY DIVISION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES 3955 EUCLID AVE., #2505 CLEVERLAND, OH 44115
  8. WRIT FEE
  9. SUMMONS E-FILE COPY COST
  10. PRAECIPE FILED PRAECIPE
  11. 12/08/2025: AFTER REVIEWING THE APPEAL, MOTION TO DISMISS, OPPOSITION BRIEF, AND REPLY BRIEF IN CONSIDERATION OF THE REPLY BRIEF FILED BY APPELLEE, CUYAHOGA COUNTY DIVISION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES ("CCDCFS"), THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED. FIRST, CCDCFS ARGUES THAT THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION AS CCDCFS DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE UNDERLYING DECISION BY THE AGENCY. COURTS MUST RELY ONLY ON THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WHEN DETERMINING A MOTION TO DISMISS. STATE EX REL. EVANS V. MOHR, 2018-OHIO-5089, PARA 6, CITING JEFFERSON V. BUNTING, 2014-OHIO-3074, PARA 11. THE COURT DECLINES TO CONVERT THIS MOTION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CIV.R. 12. AS THERE IS NO INDICATION WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS SERVED ON CCDCFS. THE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE, THEREFORE, WHETHER THE APPEAL WAS TIMELY PERFECTED. THE MOTION IS DENIED IN THIS RESPECT. SECONDLY, CCDCFS ARGUES THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE APPELLANTS FAILED TO FILE A PRAECIPE REQUESTING THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSCRIPT. APPELLANTS POINT OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSCRIPT TAKEN OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS. BECAUSE THE COURT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR THIS REASON, AND BECAUSE THE COURT IS ALSO PERMITTED TO REMAND AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL WITH AN ORDER TO FURTHER DEVELOP THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD, THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED IN THIS RESPECT AS WELL. FINALLY, CCDCFS ARGUES THAT THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS IT IS NOT SUI GENERIS AND IS MERELY A SUB-ENTITY OF THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, CUYAHOGA COUNTY. TYPICALLY, THE DECISION WHETHER TO PERMIT AMENDMENT OF A COMPLAINT IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE. PETERSON V. TEODOSIO, 34 OHIO ST.2D 161, 175 (1973). IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, HOWEVER, FOR A COURT TO DECLINE SUCH LEAVE WHEN THE PLAINTIFF MAY CORRECT DEFICIENCIES IN THE COMPLAINT THAT MAY OTHERWISE RESULT IN A DISMISSAL. ID. APPELLANTS, THEREFORE, ARE PERMITTED TO AMEND THEIR APPEAL SHOULD THEY FEEL SUCH AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED. THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED ON THESE GROUNDS AS WELL. PURSUANT TO THE SPECIFIC APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS GOVERNING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES AND DEADLINES SHALL APPLY: 1. WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER, UPON THE FILING OF A PRAECIPE BY THE APPELLANT, APPELLEE OFFICER OR BODY SHALL FILE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT. 2. UPON TIMELY FILING OF THE RECORD, THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ESTABLISHED IN LOCAL RULE 28 SHALL APPLY: A) APPELLANT SHALL FILE ITS BRIEF AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE FILING OF THE RECORD; B) APPELLEE SHALL FILE ITS BRIEF AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR, IF ANY, WITHIN 15 DAYS THEREAFTER; C) APPELLANT MAY FILE A REPLY BRIEF WITHIN 7 DAYS. 3. FAILURE OF APPELLANT TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF ON A TIMELY BASIS MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF APPEAL. NOTICE ISSUED
  12. REPLY BRIEF FILED BY D1 CUYAHOGA COUNTY DIVISION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES LESLIE SHAFER 0091129 CCDCFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
  13. 10/29/2025: CASE CALLED FOR PRE-TRIAL; COUNSEL FOR ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING. ISSUES DISCUSSED. THE COURT PREMATURELY RULED ON APPELLEE CUYAHOGA COUNTY DCFS' MOTION TO DISMISS. APPELLEE GIVEN UNTIL 11/04/2025 TO FILE ITS REPLY BRIEF. THE COURT WILL RECONSIDER ITS RULING IN LIGHT OF ALL THE BRIEFING AT THAT TIME. FOLLOWING THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE COURT WILL SET A BRIEFING SCHEDULE, IF NECESSARY. NOTICE ISSUED
  14. 10/20/2025: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS, FILED 09/04/2025, IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF(S) ADAM WALLACE(P1) AND TAYLOR WALLACE(P2)'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, FILED 10/06/2025 BY RICHARD E HACKERD 0055306, IS GRANTED. THE COURT DEEMS PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO BE TIMELY FILED. FILED MOTION TO DISMISS, FILED 08/20/2025, IS DENIED. IN CONSTRUING THE COMPLAINT IN A LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE APPELLANTS, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT A DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL AT THIS TIME. NOTICE ISSUED
  15. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FILED BY PLAINTIFF(S) ADAM WALLACE(P1) and TAYLOR WALLACE(P2) RICHARD E HACKERD 0055306 TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS
  16. MOTION FILED FOR PLAINTIFF(S) ADAM WALLACE(P1) and TAYLOR WALLACE(P2) RICHARD E HACKERD 0055306 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
  17. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DIMISS DUE 09/20. REPLY BRIEF DUE 10/06. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE RESET. CASE MGMNT CONFERENCE SET FOR 10/29/2025 AT 12:00 PM. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO INITIATE CALL WITH ALL PARTIES THEN ADD COURT TO CALL AT 216-443-8745. NOTICE ISSUED
  18. CASE MGMNT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 09/11/2025 AT 11:30 AM IS CANCELLED.
  19. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS
  20. MOTION TO DISMISS FILED MOTION TO DISMISS
  21. CASE MGMNT CONFERENCE SET FOR 09/11/2025 AT 11:30 AM. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO INITIATE CALL WITH ALL PARTIES THEN ADD COURT TO CALL AT 216-443-8745. NOTICE ISSUED
  22. USPS RECEIPT NO. 56216915 DELIVERED BY USPS 03/04/2025 CUYAHOGA COUNTY DIVISION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES PROCESSED BY COC 03/12/2025.
  23. PRAECIPE FILED PRAECIPE
  24. COMPLAINT W/ NO SUMS(56216915) SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL. TO: CUYAHOGA COUNTY DIVISION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES 3955 EUCLID AVE., #2505 CLEVERLAND, OH 44115
  25. SUMMONS E-FILE COPY COST
  26. JUDGE TIMOTHY MCCORMICK ASSIGNED (RANDOM)
  27. LEGAL RESEARCH
  28. LEGAL NEWS
  29. LEGAL AID
  30. COURT SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
  31. COMPUTER FEE
  32. CLERK'S FEE
  33. DEPOSIT AMOUNT PAID RICHARD E HACKERD

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