Case law

Elston v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

762 F. Supp. 180 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 1991

Thomson, 148 F.2d 1, 3 (7th Cir.1945), it cannot be stretched so as to encompass all employees of a railroad, a result clearly in *184 conflict with the statutory language which forbids such a construction. Holl v. … Co., 352 U.S. 500, 507-08 , 77 S.Ct. 443, 449 , 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957), reh’g denied, 353 U.S. 943 , 77 S.Ct. 808 , 1 L.Ed.2d 764 (1957) such as a tenant’s immunity for liability when injuries are sustained in an area under

Tanyike v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 22, 2022

The Producing Entity that designates information or items for protection under this Order must use good faith efforts to limit any such designation to the specific material that qualifies for protection as Confidential … if any document or ESI (including, without limitation, metadata) received by a party is on its face clearly subject to a legally recognizable privilege, immunity, or other right not to produce such information

Jones v. City Of Cincinnati

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 21, 2024

immunity, (id. … Second, inasmuch as the Court may consider the new law Jones cites in his proposed reply, established case law clearly contradicts Jones’s argument.

Franklin v. AAA

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 25, 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. … (Doc. 1, PageID 2-3).1 Given that report and evidence that she paid a $605 filing fee in another case on January 31, 2025,2 it is unclear whether Plaintiff actually qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis.

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 .

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.

Thomas v. Gee

850 F. Supp. 665 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 1994

While it is true that in order to establish plaintiffs claim of a denial of equal protection by the ad hoc actions of the defendants, plaintiff must establish that the defendants’ actions were prompted by “some racial, or … The rule clearly applies to plaintiffs substantive due process liberty claim as defined by the Court.

United States v. Cooper

428 F. Supp. 652 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 22, 1977

Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976), there is an exception to the warrant requirement for “inventory searches” conducted pursuant to an established procedure. … The analysis cannot end here, however, as the search might well qualify under one of the other exceptions to the warrant requirement. Most of these are facially inapplicable.

Flint v. Mercy Health Partners

940 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 16, 2013

Section 4112.05 and 4112.08 of the Ohio Revised Code clearly preclude the judicial remedies under state law only if a charge, in writing and under oath, is filed with the O.C.R.C. within six months of an alleged discriminatory … The Spengler court considered the reasoning of the courts that held that the filing of a charge with the EEOC qualified as an election of remedy pursuant to § 4112.05.

Block v. Canepa

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 2025

Those laws establish a three-tier system for distributing wine in Ohio. … such immunity did not apply.

Howard v. State Of Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 27, 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. … Nor do plaintiff’s allegations establish that Brittany T.R. Lee is a state actor subject to suit under § 1983.

Schaner

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 10, 2026

An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when a plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … Absent an express waiver, a state is immune from damage suits under the Eleventh Amendment. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993) (citations omitted).

Brown v. Yost

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 25, 2024

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution grants sovereign immunity to the States except when the State consents to be sued, when Congress abrogates a State’s immunity, or when the Ex parte Young exception … The Court disagrees and finds that the Ex Parte Young exception to immunity applies here.

Cottman v. Dunbar Armored, Inc

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 6, 2020

claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In order to show a prima facie case of wrongful termination under Title VII, Plaintiff must establish that she was a member of a protected class, she was qualified for the position involved, she was terminated from employment

Turner v. Davis

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 9, 2021

Finally, although Defendants argue Magistrate Judge Deavers erred in her qualified immunity assessment, the Court agrees upon de novo review that Defendants’ briefing on this argument before the Magistrate Judge was so … J. 16-18, ECF No. 81 (arguing it was not clearly established that Defendants’ denial of separate congregation services—which is not the issue in this case—amounted to a burden on the right to freely exercise religion).

Compston v. Borden, Inc.

424 F. Supp. 157 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 1976

This may be done by showing (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected … Evans, a supervisor at Columbus Coated Fabrics, clearly acknowledged by his words and deeds his acceptance of Mr. Compston’s claim that he was Jewish.

Franklin v. J.C. Battle Funeral Home

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 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. … it is unclear whether Plaintiff actually qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis.3 But absent further information, the undersigned has conditionally granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed without payment of a filing

Baldwin-United Corp. v. Paine Webber Group, Inc. (In Re Baldwin-United Corp.)

57 B.R. 759 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 22, 1985

Clearly they could have commenced an action against debtors pre-petition because the rights and liabilities of debtors with respect to the policy-holders were clearly established at that time. … Moreover, Judge Newsome is uniquely qualified to determine the likelihood of a successful reorganization because he has presided over Baldwin’s reorganization for two years.

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.

Westbrook v. City Of Cincinnati

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 2025

immunity. … The Officers argue that three doctrines entitle them to summary judgment: judicial estoppel, the Heck bar, and qualified immunity.4 4 The Officers seem to conflate their arguments regarding judicial estoppel and Heck v