Case law

Moore

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

On September 5, 2025, Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that the tardiness of Plaintiff's application meant that he was not qualified for the Product Manager position, and, thus, could not establish a prima … In the first phase, Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case “by showing that (1) he is a member of a protected group, (2) he was qualified for the position in question, (3) his employer took an adverse employment

Police Officers for Equal Rights v. CITY OF COL.

644 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 8, 1985

Milligan, a professor of statistics at Ohio State University, clearly qualified as a statistics expert, although his experience with EEO matters was somewhat less than that of plaintiffs’ experts. Dr. Milligan, like Dr. … THE WITNESS: There is a qualifier in here that indicates to me, at least, that that’s not a hard standard at all. Q.

Collik v. Pohlable

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 3, 2020

ANALYSIS Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for deprivation, under color of state law, of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution … App’x 527, 532 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Sixth Circuit case law clearly demonstrates that the search of an entire car for drugs after a drug-dog’s alert is reasonable,” including a search of the car’s trunk).

Sheppard v. Bagley

604 F. Supp. 2d 1003 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2009

established Supreme Court precedent, as well as an unreasonable application of that clearly established precedent. … The instructions given in Sheppard’s case are not contrary to clearly established federal law.

Freeman v. Warden, Ross Correctional Institute

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 2, 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. … To establish liability under § 1983 against an individual defendant, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant was personally involved in the conduct that forms the basis of his complaint. Greene v.

Price v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 28, 2020

Qualified Immunity Last, as government officials engaged in performing discretionary functions, all four Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct … did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Dozier v. Chupka

763 F. Supp. 1430 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 15, 1991

It was established at the hearing to consider the present motion to dissolve the Dozier injunction that Mr. … Given that the testimony and stipulated facts in this case clearly contradict counsel’s protestations, these arguments merit no further discussion.

Golson v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution

886 F. Supp. 2d 782 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 2012

A state court decision is considered “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law” when it is “diametrically different, opposite in character or nature, or mutually opposed.” Nields v. … To be deemed “an unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), a state court’s decision must be “‘objectively unreasonable,’ not simply erroneous or incorrect.” Cornwell v.

Kennedy v. United Healthcare of Ohio, Inc.

206 F.R.D. 191 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 2002

UHCO’s records clearly show that UHCO determined Georgia Tigner’s co-payment for this claim, $26.31, by calculating 20% of $131.53, the provider’s scheduled charge. … Second, it must be shown that the repre sentatives — through qualified counsel — will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class. Id.

Morris, Sr. v. Small Business Administration

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 1, 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. … “The [Federal Tort Claims Act] clearly provides that the United States is the only proper defendant in a suit alleging negligence by a federal employee.” Allgeier v.

Bishop

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 2026

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. … Harwood, 852 F.3d 568, 582-283 (6th Cir. 2017) (“[I]ndividuals have a clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from malicious prosecution by a defendant who has ‘made, influenced, or participated in the decision

Lavrenchuk

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2025

action has no arguable legal basis when the . . . plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. … Supp. 174, 180 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (“It is well settled that a plaintiff attempting to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), clause 2, or § 1985(3), must demonstrate that the [d]efendant under consideration acted with

Arron

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 2026

App’x 900, 910 (6th Cir. 2019) (finding that “there is a qualified substantive due process right to raise one’s child” (citation and quotations omitted)). … As it pertains to the allegations here, the Sixth Circuit has held that “[i]t is clearly established that the Constitution recognizes both a protectible procedural due process interest in parenting a child and a substantive

Rheinecker v. Forest Laboratories, Inc.

813 F. Supp. 1307 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 27, 1993

The Defendants claim that the Plaintiff failed to meet these requirements, and therefore does not qualify for protection under the Act. … As the Seventh Circuit observed, however, “front pay is an equitable [remedy because] ... it can be awarded only if reinstatement, clearly an equitable remedy, is impracticable.” Price v.

Hoffmeyer v. Chambers-Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 28, 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. … “The United States Supreme Court has established that, in order to have standing to bring a claim for denial of access to the courts, the inmate must establish that he suffered an actual injury as a result of the alleged

Gadagbui v. Upside Innovations, LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 2020

Plaintiff first argues that she has established pretext based on the temporal proximity between the announcement of her pregnancy on February 14 and Upside’s decision to eliminate her position approximately establish … the less-qualified white candidate for promotion based upon discrimination).

Young

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

Absent an express waiver, a state is immune from damages suits under the Eleventh Amendment. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. … state that creates or increases the risk that an individual will be exposed to private acts of violence; (2) exposure of an individual to a special danger not posed to the public at large; and (3) that the state knew or clearly

Reddy v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Health Center

137 F. Supp. 2d 948 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 19, 2000

However, even a casual reading of the affidavits at issue herein indicates that a number of the paragraphs are clearly based on personal knowledge. … Thus, there is no genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether he was qualified for the position of Medical Director; he was not.

Nilesh Shah v. Fortive Corporation, et al.

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

Pursuant to the Rule, a qualified expert may testify in the form of an opinion if the testimony will help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, is based on sufficient facts or data, … And the party offering an expert opinion has the burden of establishing its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Nelson v.

May v. United States

515 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 3, 1981

In the Memorandum attached to its Motion, Defendant has maintained that, as the present suit is in essence being brought against the United States, the action must be barred under principles of sovereign immunity. … Thus, although the Court agrees that some allowance should be made for investigative delay, the time lapse in the present case would clearly appear to be outside any such permissible period.