Case law

McConnaughy v. Probate Court of Belmont County, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 2021

Facial plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. … However, any such claim against the Belmont County Probate Court fails because county “courts in Ohio qualify as arms of the state, and therefore ‘are immune from suits brought by citizens of Ohio.’” Phillips v.

Crawford v. ITT Consumer Financial Corp.

653 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 14, 1986

Plaintiff will establish a prima facie case on showing that: 1) Plaintiff falls within the protected age group, i.e., between ages 40 and 70; 2) she was qualified for the position; 3) adverse employment actions were taken … The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.

Campbell v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 2022

The Eleventh Amendment bars such suits unless the State has waived its immunity or Congress has acted to override that immunity. Id. … Because she fails to establish a prima facie case, her claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA is dismissed. 2.

Bushner

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 2, 2026

An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … To establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, a prisoner must establish that he or she has suffered an actual injury, which is a jurisdictional requirement that flows from the standing doctrine and may

Smotherman v. Errett

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 23, 2020

Accordingly, in drafting a complaint, a plaintiff must: (1) clearly state the underlying claim; and (2) include supporting facts that describe “official acts frustrating the litigation” to show actual injury. … “[A]ninmate cannot establish relevantactual injury simply by establishing [their claim]in some theoretical sense.” Lewis,518 U.S.at 351.

Peace

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 2025

“A suit against OSU is the same as a suit against Ohio because OSU, like Ohio’s other public universities, qualifies as an arm of the state.” Id. (citing Johnson v. … Peace does not dispute that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to Defendants, but argues that the Ex parte Young exception to such immunity allows him to bring his claims for prospective injunctive relief against them

Brown v. ASD Computing Center

519 F. Supp. 1096 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 15, 1981

In the present case, Plaintiff’s claims, and the evidence pertinent thereto, clearly do not relate to a procedure which is facially neutral but which operates to perpetuate the “status quo of prior discriminatory practices … There is also no evidence to indicate that Brown was not qualified to perform a trainee function.

Davis v. United States

201 F. Supp. 92 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 1961

and solicit the assistance of all residents for the purpose of helping the underprivileged, sick and handicapped youth of the Columbus area as more fully set forth in the Trust Agreement, as amended: “The Foundation is established … The sole question presented is whether the Foundation meets the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code so as to qualify as an exempt organization thereunder.

Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. LeMay

536 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 1982

Rottier, 8 Ohio St. 548 (1858), is clearly, and has been regarded as, a wrongful attachment case, not a malicious prosecution case. Id. at 552; see also, Columbus Finance, Inc. v. … from liability under the antitrust laws established in a trio of Supreme Court cases: Eastern Railroad Presidents Conf. v.

Carlotta v. Higher Education Loan Authority of The State Of Missouri Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 25, 2025

MOHELA also established and funds the Missouri Scholarship and Loan Foundation. Id. In total, MOHELA funds roughly $530 million in educational programs. Id. … But, as MOHELA points out in its Reply, Plaintiff fails to address Missouri's clearly delineated control over the existence and governance of MOHELA, as evident both in the statutory language creating MOHELA and

Nilavar v. Mercy Health System-Western Ohio

142 F. Supp. 2d 859 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 19, 2000

The injury to Angelico from the assumed conspiracy is clearly direct (and substantial). Angelico’s injury is the direct result of the alleged conspiracy. … Rather, the language of the contract clearly indicates the parties’ intention that the unitary fee be allocated as though they had billed separately.

Tucker v. WARDEN, OHIO STATE PENITENTIARY

175 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2001

This Court also must find that the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court was “objectively unreasonable,” in the sense that it involved an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. … Tucker does not dispute that Innis qualifies as the controlling “clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States."

Haines v. General Motors Corp.

603 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 3, 1984

initial inquiry in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action must focus on whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law and whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges or immunities … “Due process does not require that notice be given before the confirmation of rights theretofore established in a proceeding of which adequate notice was given.” Id. at 233-34, 66 S.Ct. at 562-63.

AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac & Ugine

234 F. Supp. 2d 711 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 30, 2002

WITHHELD UNDER A CLAIM OF WORK PRODUCT IMMUNITY (ITEM NO. 20.01) WILLIAM R. HARDY, Special Master. … To circumvent the qualified protection from discovery, AK must show a “substantial need of the materials in the preparation of ...

Stojetz v. Ishee

389 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2005

as to women and death qualified jurors. … The rule established by State v.

In Re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation

424 F. Supp. 2d 1002 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2006

Therefore, dismissal is not warranted on any count based on Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiffs have failed to set forth facts establishing that each Defendant qualified as a Plan fiduciary. … In this case, the Cardinal stock held by the Plan is a qualifying employer security. 17 .

Chenoweth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

159 F. Supp. 2d 1032 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 17, 2001

Yet, in taking into account the full record, the Court concludes that Wal-Mart has not met its burden of establishing good faith. … Notice is necessary “to allow the qualified beneficiary to make an informed decision whether to elect coverage.” Id. at 958 .

Duncan v. Husted

125 F. Supp. 3d 674 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 2015

It also requires that the petition be signed by no fewer than 5,000 qualified electors and no more than 15,000. Id. … statute “clearly impose[d] a heavier burden on minor parties than major parties by giving minor parties less time to obtain the same level or electoral success as established parties.”

United States v. Longworth

269 F. Supp. 971 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 1967

In addition, the cases establish that exemptions and deferments claimed under Section 456 and regulations promulgated thereunder are matters of legislative grace and “the Selective Service registrant bears the burden of clearly … establishing the right to the exemption.”

Ohio Contractors Ass'n v. Economic Development Administration

452 F. Supp. 1013 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 22, 1977

In the event there are insufficient qualified minority enterprises in the relevant market area, the grantee may apply to the EDA Regional Director for a waiver. MBE Guidelines, pp. 13-16. … The initial concerns of the Court in the context of this action are (1) whether a reviewing court must scrutinize legislation which clearly fits within a recognized general area of compelling state interest to determine whether