Case law

Grimm v. Lane

895 F. Supp. 907 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 1995

Pope qualified as an expert. The Court made this finding after both sides were allowed to voir dire the witness. … The Defendants argue that the damage awards were “clearly excessive” and should be reversed.

Franklin v. Butler County Courts

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 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. … Given that report and evidence that she paid a $605 filing fee in another case on January 31, 2025, 1 it is unclear whether Plaintiff actually qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis.

Garrett v. Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 10, 2022

To this end, it is well established that a party can waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by voluntarily appearing and defending a case on its merits: A state can waive its sovereign … App'x 288, 299 (6th Cir. 2014) (“[A] state waives its sovereign immunity where its dilatory assertion of immunity is a ‘tactical decision.’”)

Fowlkes v. Department of Defense

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 2025

For a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination in the employment context, he must show: “(1) that he is disabled, (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable … Rather, the DOD contends Fowlkes cannot establish that he is disabled within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, and, that he was not otherwise qualified for his job at WPAFB. (Doc.

Ebert v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance

171 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 30, 2001

In sum, the Court concludes that the foregoing objective medical evidence establishes recognized causes for Plaintiffs complaints of pain, which she voiced both before and after December 6, 1997. … The Court points out that the Plan does not require a "change of conditions” to qualify as totally disabled.

In re Grand Jury Proceedings

196 F.R.D. 57 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 2000

According to Kossoff, these reasons for seeking grand jury materials do not establish "a 'particularized need’ or an inability to present important relevant material to the trier of fact absent access to the Grand Jury materials … In fact, the Sixth Circuit noted that Black River had filed its motion under Rule 41(e), which "clearly contemplates a hearing ‘on any issue of fact necessary to the decision on the motion.’” Hess, 982 F.2d at 186 . .

Blassingame v. Governor of the State of Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 3, 2021

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. … With respect to Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d or 29 U.S.C. § 3248, plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that would establish that a claim for relief against defendants.

Washington v. Neil

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2019

App’x 265, 266 (6th Cir. 2003) (setting forth requirements for a putative “next friend” and stating that the “putative next friend must clearly establish ‘the propriety of his status’ in order to ‘justify the jurisdiction … There, he argues that, as Petitioner’s “biological” father, he should automatically qualify as Petitioner’s next friend because he “is truly dedicated to the best interests of his biological son[.]”

City of Fairborn, Ohio v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

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

Ammonia qualifies as an air contaminant. See Ohio Admin. Code § 3745- 31-01. Prior to issuing the permit, Ohio EPA must ensure that the source will use BAT to limit emissions. Ohio Admin. … Currently, no Sixth Circuit case definitively establishes whether the CAA’s diligent prosecution requirement is jurisdictional.

Blassingame v. Trihealth Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 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. … Title II of the ADA provides, in pertinent part, that no qualified individual with a disability shall, because of that disability, “be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or

Hardison

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 6, 2026

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth facts that clearly establish: “(1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) [that has been] caused by a person acting … Plaintiff has not established this Court’s diversity jurisdiction to hear these claims.

Stager v. Hanshaw

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 10, 2024

So the general grant of immunity applies. … Because no exception to statutory immunity applies, the Court need not consider the third tier of the immunity analysis.

Blankenship v. Blackwell

341 F. Supp. 2d 911 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 12, 2004

The Court concludes that the Ohio law at issue should be reviewed under a strict scrutiny analysis as it clearly infringes on the extent of ballot-related activity protected by the First Amendment. … The Court found that Plaintiff failed to dem *920 onstrate that state law would clearly bar the interposition of the constitutional claim during the course of proceedings before the Ohio Elections Commission.

Merrick v. Warden Noble Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2025

immunity because the Undersigned finds no constitutional violation. … Ohio July 2, 2024) (“The Court need not address whether any of the [d]efendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the record shows there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these [d]efendants violated

Christopher-Michael Williams v. A Corporation d/b/a Writeaprisoner.com, et al.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 28, 2026

. § 1981 in the ‘commercial establishment context’”). … However, “private actors may be subject to § 1983 claims if their conduct qualifies them to be considered state actors.” Nugent v. Spectrum Juv. Just. Servs., 72 F.4th 135, 139-40 (6th Cir. 2023) (citing Carl v.

Johnson v. City of Cincinnati

119 F. Supp. 2d 735 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 20, 2000

She did not qualify, therefore, for a variance. … Chapter 755 classifies conduct that clearly ought to be legal as criminal trespass.

Fernbach v. Hamilton County, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 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. … Middendorf/81jmid, Jon Middendorf, Benjamin Gifford/81bgif, Benjamin Gifford, Johnathan McMahon/81jmcm, and Johnathan McMahon, without any factual allegations establishing that they are state actors.

Merrick v. Warden Noble Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2025

immunity because the Undersigned finds no constitutional violation. … Ohio July 2, 2024) (“The Court need not address whether any of the [d]efendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the record shows there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these [d]efendants violated

Tucker v. Alvis, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 20, 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 … More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he, “a Black man, applied to [eighteen] open employment opportunities with Alvis which he was qualified to hold.

Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 2020

As for the right to a remedy, the Court noted that substituting a statutory cause of action for a common law right would violate the Ohio Constitution only if the statute imposed “a ‘serious infringement on a clearly existing … Second, while it is perhaps possible that a statute could be so ambiguous as to create a fair-notice due-process concern, the statute here does not qualify—not even close.