Case law

Williams v. Drug Enforcement Administration

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 18, 2024

The FOIA calls for full disclosure of the activities of federal agencies “unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language.” Jones v. … A waiver of sovereign immunity may not be implied and exists only when Congress has expressly waived immunity by statute. United States v.

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).

Morris Sr. v. Huffman

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 28, 2022

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 well established that judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from suits for money damages for all actions taken in the judge’s judicial capacity, unless these actions are taken in the complete absence

Williams v. Taylor

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 2025

That avenue exists because, in addition to establishing a bar on proceeding on certain claims, “Heck [also] established a delayed accrual date in cases involving challenges to an invalid conviction or sentence.” … But, while Williams is correct that a prosecutor’s “functions which are more ‘investigative’ or ‘administrative’ in nature, because they are more removed from the judicial process, are subject only to qualified immunity

Jones v. Hamilton County

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

Jones at any time and did nothing more than file the panel’s decision of record.12 In an attempt to circumvent the judicial immunity to which Judge McKeague is clearly entitled, Plaintiff cites to Pulliam v. … Sovereign Immunity Just as Judge McKeague is entitled to judicial immunity, the Judicial Circuit is entitled to sovereign immunity.

Smith v. Silvernail

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 16, 2024

Plaintiff then submitted a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, asking this Court to find that Marx was not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity, and that Fairfield was not entitled to various immunity defenses that … Silvernail is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Smith v. Hogan

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 2, 2024

Plaintiff alleges that these Defendants “took no action whatsoever” with respect to Hogan’s order, even though they “knew or should have known [that the] order was in direct violation of clearly established policies and … But these facts by themselves cannot establish liability. See Peatross, 818 F.3d at 241-42.

Taulbee v. Blue Bird Baking Co.

745 F. Supp. 1290 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 10, 1989

Under McDonnell-Douglas, the plaintiff must demonstrate as a threshold matter: 1. that he was a member of a protected class (age 40-70); 2. that he was subjected to adverse employment action; 3. that he was qualified for … Since Plaintiff has the burden of proof at trial respecting age discrimination, and further since Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that a genuine issue of fact remains as to whether age was a determining factor in Defendant

Turner v. Davis

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 15, 2019

ODRC is an agency of the State of Ohio and immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, unless the State of Ohio has waived its sovereign immunity or consented to be sued in federal court.”) … Michigan Dep’t of Corr., 927 F.3d 455, 460 (6th Cir. 2019) (“RLUIPA doesn’t clearly authorize money damages. . . .

FEDERATED RURAL ELEC. INS. EX. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins.

134 F. Supp. 2d 923 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 1, 2001

To adopt a less strict standard of judicial review would be to undermine the well-established deference to arbitration as a favored method of settling disputes when agreed to by the parties. See id. … Thus, the prorata method of allocation was not clearly applicable. The 1996 arbitration panel did not render a baseless opinion that flew in the face of clearly established principles.

McCollum v. Newark Police Department

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 23, 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. … As a prosecutor’s decision whether to bring charges against a person is entitled to absolute immunity, Defendants Hayes and Murphy are immune from suit for such acts.

Saqr v. University Of Cincinnati

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 8, 2020

Compl. at ¶ 6, #175), Magistrate Judge Bowman further observed that “[i]t is not entirely clear [from the Proposed Amended Complaint] whether the newly proposed individual Defendants” might qualify as state officials acting … In compliance with the schedule established by the September 23, 2019 Order, UC filed a memorandum in opposition to the Saqrs’ Motion to Amend on October 4, 2019. (See Doc. 34).

Block v. Canepa

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 17, 2021

IMMUNITY Defendants next challenge Plaintiffs’ Complaint on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. Defendants concede that Yost is not immune. … Defendants, as the parties arguing that they are immune, have the burden of proof to show that they are entitled to immunity. Guertin v.

R. Renaissance, Inc. v. Rohm and Haas Co.

674 F. Supp. 591 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 26, 1987

Plaintiff, however, contends that the term “intangibles” is qualified by the phrase “used in or associated with Sellers’ business operations” (Depo.Ex. 191, p. 2 ¶ 2(e). … While Ohio law on the issue is sparse, two cases do exist and speak clearly to the issue. In Cincinnati Fluid Power, Inc. v.

Miyazawa v. City of Cincinnati

825 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 6, 1993

In the State of Ohio the Constitution has established certain rights of municipalities. Under Article XVIII, Section 3: Municipalities shall have the authority to exercise all powers of self government.... … This clearly is violative of the freedom of association. Issue 5 in no way prevents the Plaintiff from associating with the political party of her choice.

Jabr v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 22, 2024

Yet, a court is not required to accept factual allegations set forth in a complaint as true when such factual allegations are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F. … (applying Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity to state agents); see Lewis v.

Epicenter of Steubenville, Inc. v. City of Steubenville

924 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 30, 1996

While the goal of City Council may have been to block Epicenter from establishing new housing for the mentally handicapped in the North End, the statute, as passed, prevents the establishment of any new Adult Care Facilities … Thus, the question remains whether the ordinance violates the Privileges' and Immunities Clause, the fundamental right to travel, or the Dormant Commerce Clause. 4 .