Case law

Sherman v. Public Employees Retirement System

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2023

“The caselaw analyzing Eleventh Amendment immunity has not treated the Ernst factors, or the considerations relevant to any one of them, as a checklist that must be satisfied to establish immunity. … Assembly), and others are clearly not (political subdivisions).

Puskas v. Delaware County, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 2021

It is well-established that “[a] suit against an individual in his official capacity is the equivalent of a suit against the governmental entity.” Matthews v. … Puskas has failed to state a claim against him, and that he holds qualified immunity against the claims. (Id.) Because the Court finds that Mrs. Puskas’s § 1983 claims against Lt.

Aaron v. O'Connor

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 20, 2020

When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Moir v. … There are three exceptions to a state’s sovereign immunity: (1) when the state has consented to suit; (2) when Congress has clearly and expressly abrogated the state’s immunity; and (3) when the exception set forth in

Mason v. CVS Health

384 F. Supp. 3d 882 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 3, 2019

The onus of establishing that there are no genuine issue of material facts is on the movant, and the movant may establish a genuine issue of material facts by demonstrating that the non-moving party lacks evidence to support … Under Rule 702, a witness is "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education," which is established by "the expert's scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will help the trier

Reedstrom v. Nova Chemicals, Inc.

234 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 19, 2002

Thus, the ET & C Program qualifies as an employee welfare benefit plan, with the meaning of ERISA. C. … Clearly, the Guidelines, as the plan document, are proper documentary evidence, which was considered by its decision-makers.

Stone v. Ohio Parole Board

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 2023

Still more, all Defendants have asserted a defense of qualified immunity against Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 54 at 12–14). … Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Gruener v. Ohio Casualty Co.

416 F. Supp. 2d 592 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 25, 2005

Yet the drafters of the ADA and its subsequent interpretive regulations clearly intended that plaintiffs who are mistakenly regarded as being unable to work have a cause of action under the statute ... … The case will proceed to trial on the claims against defendant Ohio Casualty pursuant to the schedule previously established by the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 .

Waddell v. Lewis

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2024

Because political subdivisions include municipalities under § 2744.01(F), the Village of Coal Grove qualifies as a political subdivision. … The conduct at issue is also covered by the statute since providing police services qualifies as a government function for purposes of immunity. Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.01(C)(2)(a); see also Williams v.

Harrison-Pepper v. Miami University

246 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 27, 2003

Accordingly, summary judgment is clearly proper “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party’s case and on which that party will bear the burden of … Defendant suggests that the State of Ohio has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for purposes of claims for money damages under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Antoine Lee v. Rachele Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 8, 2026

Nor did she clearly err in reaching that same conclusion as to § 1331. To establish federal-question jurisdiction under that provision, “a federal question must appear on the face of the complaint.” … But much like § 1983 itself, § 1343(a)(3) requires that any “deprivation” of a “right, privilege or immunity” occur “under color of … State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3).

Wells v. Rhodes

928 F. Supp. 2d 920 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 2013

more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified … In this case, Plaintiffs rely on their property rights under § 1982 to establish their § 1985(3) claims.

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio v. Taft

217 F. Supp. 2d 842 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 2002

A special primary could not be held on November 5, 2002, the date now established for the Ohio general election. … These considerations are valid only to the analysis of whether partisan *852 motives might have influenced the Governor’s decision, which clearly they did not.

Florence Urgent Care v. Healthspan, Inc.

445 F. Supp. 2d 871 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 2, 2006

Defendants concede for the purposes of their motion that Plaintiffs have established their prima fa-cie case. … Here, Plaintiffs have clearly proffered evidence that they were lied to about the reason for their exclusion from the network. Dr.

Finch v. XAVIER UNIVERSITY

689 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2010

Accordingly, summary judgment is clearly proper “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party’s case and on which that party will bear the burden of … Under this method, a plaintiff *963 establishes a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: 1) she is a member of a protected class; 2) she suffered an adverse employment action; 3) she was qualified for the job lost

Swain

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 17, 2026

For example, Plaintiff asserts that the OAC’s definition of “unauthorized group activities” is unconstitutionally vague and fails to define STG or list groups that qualify as STGs and also that the OAC does not contemplate … 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.

Johnson v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.

221 F. Supp. 2d 853 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2002

On June 1, 1999, HAM disallowed Johnson’s leave *855 of absence from May 9, 1999 to May 13, 1999 based on HAM’s assertion that Johnson had requested FMLA leave for a non-qualifying event. … Clearly, the Plaintiff is not precluded from asserting greater rights than are provided by the FMLA if such rights are protected by Ohio law.

Dickinson v. Zanesville Metropolitan Housing Authority

975 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2013

At this time, Plaintiff was qualified to live at Greenwood, and units were available at that location. (Id., ¶¶ 91-92). Plaintiffs attorney requested a copy of the reference on May 4, 2010. (Id., ¶ 93). … In addition, it is necessary that “the factual disputes resolved [by the agency] were clearly relevant to issues properly before it,” and that the parties “had a full and fair opportunity to argue their version of the facts

General Mills Inc. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc.

498 F. Supp. 2d 1088 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 8, 2007

Defendant claims therefore that Exclusion Q and A, when read together, clearly deny coverage for claims alleging substantial certainty intentional torts. … That exclusion, however, is followed by an inclusive qualifier that states “unless an underlying policy cover such claims.”

Gillispie v. Miami Township

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 2, 2022

App’x 455, 462-63 (6th Cir. 2017) involved whether a detective was entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. … The Sixth Circuit in Noonan held that the detective was entitled to qualified immunity because, as a matter of law, the plaintiff “did not suffer a deprivation of liberty” despite being called in by the police for questioning

Heydinger v. idX, Corp.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 29, 2021

Heydinger must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: "(1) she has a disability, (2) she is ‘otherwise qualified for the position, with or without reasonable accommodation,’ (3) she … If an employer's stated judgment that regular attendance is an 3 Although idX summarily states that Heydinger did not suffer an adverse employment action, her termination clearly qualifies as such. Kocsis v.