Case law

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

Sper v. Judson Care Center, Inc.

29 F. Supp. 3d 1102 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 2014

First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by showing that she is disabled and otherwise qualified for the position, either with or without reasonable accommodation. Keith v. … In this case, assuming that Plaintiffs failure to follow the established narcotics distribution protocol was caused by the side effects of her medication, and hence was caused by her disability, this misconduct was clearly

Zep Inc. v. Midwest Motor Supply Co.

726 F. Supp. 2d 818 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 22, 2010

This interpretation does not result in manifest absurdity nor is some other meaning clearly evidenced from the face or overall contents of the Settlement Agreement. … The error means that the transcripts filed with this Court fail to qualify as proper summary judgment evidence under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(f)(1). 4 .

Coverdale v. Conley

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 27, 2021

Defendant also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Defendant did not exhibit deliberate indifference to Plaintiff or otherwise violate the Eighth Amendment in this case, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

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.

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

Service Employees International Union v. Husted

887 F. Supp. 2d 761 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2012

The Board must by law verify their identity and that they are otherwise qualified to vote. … So all of these admissions of poll-worker error that they’ve identified clearly don't account for the scope of the problem. Something else is going on that may not be poll-worker error.

Boddy v. Grech

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

Consequently, the case does not involve qualified immunity. See J. Endres v. Northeast Ohio Med. … Univ., 938 F.3d 281, 302 (6th Cir. 2019) (“[Q]ualified immunity only immunizes defendants from monetary damages—not injunctive or declaratory relief.” (cleaned up) (quoting Kanuszewski v. Mich.

Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Elder-Beerman Stores, Corp.

250 B.R. 609 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 1998

In turn we would do a credit look up on the card, if they would qualify we would grant the credit for furniture. [Organ:] How is that different from someone who does installment sales purchase. … In addition to narrowing the issues for trial to causation and damages, the Agreed Order also: 1) established a trial date for the unresolved issues; 2) established a method for determining the award of attorneys' fees, if

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Evans

440 F. Supp. 414 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 1977

statute, ordinance, regulation of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs have not sustained their burden of establishing their right to injunctive relief. Conclusions of Law 1.

Cox v. Nord

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2023

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 (1991)) (“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

Lucas v. Lewis

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 18, 2023

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 absolutely immune from damages for acts they commit in their judicial capacity. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967); Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246, 255 (6th Cir. 1997).

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.

Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

257 F.R.D. 435 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 21, 2009

It has vigorously prosecuted the interests of the class through qualified counsel and will likely continue to do so. B. … As discussed above, the Sixth Circuit has held clearly that courts cannot inquire into the merits at the class certification stage. 2.

Hall v. Scioto County Jail

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 6, 2023

Plaintiff has established that he does not have sufficient funds to pay the entire filing fee at this time. … 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.

Thompson v. Dezarn

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 2024

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. … [T]he Supreme Court has established via precedent that stretches back over one hundred and thirty years [that] states and their instrumentalities retain sovereign immunity from suits filed against them in federal

Nichols v. St. Luke Center of Hyde Park

800 F. Supp. 1564 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 9, 1992

An “otherwise qualified individual” has been interpreted to mean a person “who is able to meet all of a program’s requirements in spite of his handicap.” Franklin v. … The Rehabilitative Act of 1973 Unlike 42 U.S.C. § 1396r, 29 U.S.C. § 794 clearly was intended to create a private right of action. Smith v. United States Postal Service, 766 F.2d 205 (6th Cir.1985).

Sellers v. University of Rio Grande

838 F. Supp. 2d 677 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 19, 2012

Rather, these factors are to be balanced, and “[a] finding that the movant has not established a strong probability of success on the merits will not preclude a court from exercising its discretion to issue a preliminary … Some witnesses suggested, for example, that this could create a problem with the Ohio Board of Nursing, which requires strict compliance with the progression standard that a nursing program establishes.

Ackerman v. Fortis Benefits Insurance

254 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 8, 2003

(USAir also selected a benefits qualifying period of 180 days, which was typical.) (Id. at 25-26, 44-45 & Def.’s Ex. 4.) 12. Effective August 1, 1989, Fortis issued the LTD policy to USAir. … While a benefits qualifying period (i.e., waiting period) of either 90 or 180 days was typical in the insurance industry, having the option of selecting one or the other was not.

Scaccia v. Lemmie

236 F. Supp. 2d 830 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 6, 2002

Plaintiff attempted to locate another position with the City of Dayton which was vacant and for which he was qualified, so that he could transfer to another position. … Despite the ambiguity of the term “defendant or defendants,” it is well established that removal generally requires unanimity among the defendants. 9 Balazik v.