Case law

In Re Holland

215 B.R. 861 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 11, 1997

Standard of Review This Court must review the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact pursuant to the “clearly erroneous” standard, and its conclusions of law under the “de novo ” standard. … At the time he purchased the property, condominiums did not qualify under Florida’s homestead exemption. Id. at 307 , 111 S.Ct. at 1834-35 .

Lahey v. Lahey

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 2022

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 … Facial plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

Runser v. City of Dayton, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2022

In Ex Parte Young, the Supreme Court announced an exception to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123. … B. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim Section 1983 establishes “‘a cause of action for deprivation under color of state law, of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution

Champelle

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 26, 2026

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 … Further, when considering a pro se plaintiff’s Complaint, a Court “must read [the allegations] with less stringency . . . and accept the pro se plaintiff’s allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly

Schmauch v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.

295 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2003

To prevail, the movant must establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact. … First, a plaintiff alleging discrimination must establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Rona Village of Beavercreek Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Pekin Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2023

ANALYSIS Plaintiff argues that established law across the country requires that umpires in appraisal cases be disinterested and neutral. (Doc. … First, the record shows that Lucy is well-qualified for the position as he has 25 years of experience in the field, has attended hundreds of hours of continuing education, and is a Registered Roof Consultant and a Registered

DRFP L.L.C. v. República Bolivariana de Venezuela

151 F. Supp. 3d 809 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 18, 2015

This type of administrative determination is clearly a governmental function within the meaning of Ohio law. (EOF No. 298, pp, 24-26.) … Here, Venezuela must first establish a defense before the burden shifts to Skye to prove holder in. due course.

Thomas v. City of Circleville

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 31, 2023

Thomas’s 3 In Howard, 2023 WL 334894, the Sixth Circuit, in the context of a qualified immunity discussion, reviewed the applicable precedent and concluded that, under the specific facts of that case, the Plaintiff’s … This is so even though at least one court has held that there is “a clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated

Henry v. Himes

14 F. Supp. 3d 1036 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 14, 2014

ESTABLISHED FACTS A. … This is true even when such marriages clearly violate Ohio law and are entered into outside of Ohio with the purpose of evading Ohio law with respect to marriage.

Laguardia v. Designer Brands Inc.

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

Exhibits A-D are unauthenticated print-outs ostensibly from a non-party that purport to establish that Oracle Responsys does not qualify as an ATDS such that DSW could not have violated the TCPA. … Thus, if DSW had sent the texts and used Oracle Responsys to do so, the Answer does not establish that that Oracle Responsys fails to qualify as an ATDS.

Smith v. DeWine

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

The State of Ohio has immunity for all claims against it because Ohio has not consented to suits in federal court nor has Congress abrogated Ohio’s immunity under § 1983. See Ohio v. … Importantly, the resultant harm, while serious and concerning, does not establish a liable state of mind. See Swain v.

Gaudin v. K. D. I. Corp.

417 F. Supp. 620 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 9, 1976

Failure to qualify under the Birnbaum rule is a matter that can normally be established by the defendant either on a motion to dismiss or on a motion for summary judgment. Blue Chip Stamps v. … plaintiffs allege that based upon defendants’ representations they decided not to sell their stock- This is the reverse of the fact situation in Blue Chip Stamps where the Manor Drug Stores decided not to buy stock, but is clearly

Watkins & Son Pet Supplies v. Iams Co.

107 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 3, 1999

The defendant had proffered, based on WHght-Moore, that ordinary business expenses could not qualify as franchise fees unless they were “unrecoverable expenses.” 152 F.3d at 663 . … As stated above, Section 4b of the Clayton Act establishes a four-year statute of limitations for antitrust actions. Fed.

Burks v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 13, 2019

“In a claim by a prisoner, failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA is an affirmative defense that must be established by the defendants.” Napier v. … immunity.

Foster v. Americare Healthcare Services, Inc.

150 F. Supp. 3d 868 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2015

Both of these cases address the lenient burden placed on plaintiffs to establish damages after liability has been determined. … Finally, Defendants argue that they have located no case law holding that services provided ’for clients, but that also incidentally benefits the clients’ family, magically turns a-service clearly contemplated by the companionship

Gasper

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 23, 2026

Nor is there any clearly established Supreme Court precedent which dictates the procedure which must be followed when a defendant seeks a new trial. … Although most if not all States have a process for considering whether a criminal defendant should be granted a new trial, there is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent establishing such a process as required

Carter v. City of Troy, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 1, 2024

To do this, the City “must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for not promoting” Carter. See id. at 815. … Second, even if Carter were as qualified as—or better qualified than—Walters for the promotion, Carter does not point to other probative evidence of discrimination in the record. See Provenzano, 663 F.3d at 815.

Weaver v. O'Grady

350 F. Supp. 403 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 27, 1972

. § 1983 to redress alleged deprivations under color of law of rights, privileges and immunities secured to the plaintiffs by the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution … United Shoe Machinery Corp., supra, 392 U.S. at 496 , 88 S.Ct. [2224,] at 2233, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed, see, e. g., Allen v.

Dayton Christian Schools v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission

578 F. Supp. 1004 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 6, 1984

Though the belief may not be documented or as well known or accepted as other precepts discussed during the proceeding, the evidence clearly establishes that Mr. … Yoder, the Court felt the exemption it was creating from the state’s compulsory education law was sufficiently narrow that “few other religious groups or sects” would qualify. Wisconsin v.

Edwards v. McCormick

196 F.R.D. 487 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 2000

Plaintiffs’ failure to establish an adequately defined class alone is a basis on which this Court could deny certification. … Whether or not Defendant’s practices violate the FDCPA is clearly a question that would be common to Plaintiffs’ purported class, if Plaintiffs could show that such a class exists.