Case law

Golden v. Correctional Officer Hubner

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 27, 2024

An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when the plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest that clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hubner is an intentional tortfeasor who assaulted him, acted in bad faith and is not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at PageID 127-30.)

Baker

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 5, 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. … However, Plaintiff has not established any of the four avenues that would make Heck inapplicable to his case.

Kendrick v. Erdos

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 27, 2022

Each Defendant in this matter is an employee of Ohio and any Defendant in this matter who is sued in his or her official capacity is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity unless Ohio has waived that immunity … However, Plaintiff fails to establish that he has an Eighth, Fourteenth, or any constitutional right relating to grievance procedures at SOCF.

Steele

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 2026

God created our bodies with functioning immune systems to fight off viruses such as SARS-COV-2. … Steele in accordance with its COVID-19 vaccination policy because she was not qualified to return to work. (Mot., PageID 349–50.) Ms.

Davis v. City of Columbus

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 19, 2022

Defendants did not make a qualified immunity argument in briefing, though the issue did arise at trial. In any event, the jury could not reasonably have found for Defendants on this ground, either. … When Plaintiff was arrested in 2017, reasonable Officers would have known “that ‘the gratuitous or excessive use of a taser’ violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Goodwin v.

Sutton v. National Distillers Products Co.

445 F. Supp. 1319 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 1978

Van Liere had worked for the Company since 1966, but as of May 9, 1975, may not have qualified for disability retirement. … As far as termination of her salary continuation and retaliatory 0 discharge are concerned, plaintiff need not establish the validity of her sex discrimination charge in order to establish a charge of retaliation.

Cremeans v. Taczak

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 4, 2024

Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity.” … Nonetheless, this Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity and held “[t]he delay in this case—from the seizure of Plaintiffs’ property in January 2018 to the second indictment

General Cable Corp. v. Highlander

447 F. Supp. 2d 879 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 15, 2006

It is difficult for the Court to conclude that privileged remarks made by attorneys in the context of a contract dispute can qualify as outrageous and intolerable. … Deloitte & Touche, 822 F.Supp. 1512 (D.Colo.1993), AGEM argues personal jurisdiction over a partnership establishes jurisdiction over non-resident individual partners (Id.).

United Food & Commercial Workers, Local Union 1099 v. City of Sidney

199 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 11, 2002

Other courts faced with the question of whether private property qualifies as a public forum have looked to similar factors. See, e.g., Thomason v. … reiterated the elements of a claim under § 1985: 1) a conspiracy; 2) for purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities

Campbell v. Riahi

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 13, 2023

Apart from that, Baker and Herbert were clearly fighting. … And because Campbell cannot establish liability against Riahi or the Sheriff under § 1983, the Court need not consider their qualified immunity defenses. B.

Hawkins v. Medtronic, Inc.

909 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 24, 2012

While Plaintiff does not identify the federal violations that correspond to this claim, his other claims clearly identify such violations. … The Court found that, under Medtronic’s view of the statute, "Congress would have barred most, if not all, relief for persons injured by defective medical devices,” with the "perverse effect of granting complete immunity

Kerans v. Porter Paint Co., Inc.

656 F. Supp. 267 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 1987

The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the “mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the state.” Jackson, 419 U.S. at 350 , 95 S.Ct. at 453 . … Porter Paint and Levine contend that Kerans’ § 1985(3) claim is barred because it fails to establish a conspiracy, as Griffin requires.

Orr

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 9, 2026

It is well established that judges are absolutely immune from suit.”); Kinter v. Boltz, No. 3:12-CV-85, 2012 WL 2871623, at *6 (S.D. … Mich. 1996) (“Defendant Tidik, as a private litigant in a divorce proceeding, was clearly a private actor.”). To the extent Defendant Orr kept Plaintiff from seeing the children, this is private conduct. Cf. id.

Johnson v. Mt Healthy Police

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 16, 2025

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. … “It is firmly established that a municipality, or ... a county, cannot be held liable under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.” Gregory v.

In re Cincinnati Policing

209 F.R.D. 395 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 5, 2002

By order of May 3, 2001, the Court established the collaborative procedure contemplated by these parties. The Court also retained the services of Dr. … Joinder of so many persons is clearly impracticable. The requirement of numerosity is satisfied. 2. Commonality There are questions of law and fact common to the class.

Wells v. Xavier University

7 F. Supp. 3d 746 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2014

But when a complaint omits facts that, if they existed, would clearly dominate the case, it seems fair to assume that those facts do not exist. Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir.1988). … Moreover, in Plaintiffs view everyone knew the statement referred to alleged sexual assault so that at the very minimum it qualified as libel per quod, that is, libel by implication (Id.).

Collins v. United States Playing Card Co.

466 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 6, 2006

Unlike Mauder, Collins provided his employer with information from his doctor clearly explaining that “[Collins] may develop low blood sugar symptoms and need to be able to leave work during that time to avoid passing out … to establish that an employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharge was a pretext.”

Cook

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 2026

But the Court is not required to accept factual allegations that are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F. App’x 427, 429–30 (6th Cir. 2009). … Moreover, even if Plaintiff could establish that Defendant Central Pharmacy Inpatient is not entitled to sovereign immunity and could be considered a person under § 1983, he has failed to allege a plausible Eighth Amendment

In Re AEP Erisa Litigation

437 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 12, 2006

Servs., 797 F.Supp. 1416, 1421 (N.D.Ill.1992) (a claim based on violations of ERISA is clearly rooted in existing ERISA law). Thus, the focus becomes whether Bridges has a viable claim for vested benefits. … Clearly, a plaintiff alleging that his benefits were wrongly computed has a claim for vested benefits. Payment of the sum sought by such a plaintiff will not increase payments due him.

Littlepage v. Barrett

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 24, 2020

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. … Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (finding that judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just immunity from the assessment of money damages).