Case law

Ryan v. The Procter & Gamble Company

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

Indeed, the Court will overturn the plan administrator only if the decision was “not just clearly incorrect but downright unreasonable.” Kenny v. Gen. Motors Corp., 24 F. … Ryan is right that those words serve as qualifiers.

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security

180 F. Supp. 3d 497 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 25, 2016

To be substantial, the evidence “must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be .established... … “Disability” Defined To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must be under a “disability” as defined by the Social Security Act.' 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A).

H.R. ex rel. Reuter v. Medtronic, Inc.

996 F. Supp. 2d 671 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 2014

Defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal was proper. Long v. Bando Mfg. of Am., Inc., 201 F.3d 754, 757 (6th Cir.2000). … Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims clearly implicate federal law. B. Substantial Federal Interest Next, a federal court may assert federal question jurisdiction over a matter that contains significant federal issues.

Lewis-Money v. Commissioner of Social Security

142 F. Supp. 3d 631 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2015

B, “Disability” Defined To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must be under a “disability” as defined by the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). … Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 708 F.2d 1048, 1054 (6th Cir.1983) (“it is clearly established law that the opinion of a non-treating ‘one-shot’ consultative physician , or of a medical advisor cannot constitute substantial

Honzu v. Warden Ross Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 29, 2022

The ODRC’s immunity from § 1983 claims, due to its state agency status, is well established in the Sixth Circuit.”) (internal citations omitted). … “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

Cooey v. Strickland

610 F. Supp. 2d 853 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 21, 2009

Team Member # 18 emphasized that all of the syringes are labeled clearly and unmistakably. … intolerable risk of harm’ that qualifies as cruel and unusual.”

Price v. Medicaid Director

310 F.R.D. 345 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 2015

To the extent plaintiffs’ applications for retroactive assisted living waiver benefits were denied, plaintiffs were clearly entitled to notice of that denial and a hearing to contest this action. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3) ( … The Court concludes plaintiffs have established that the proposed class meets the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3). 4.

Twin City Fire Insurance Company v. RK Family, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2025

expression, genetic makeup, or refusal to submit to genetic makeup testing, pregnancy, disability, HIV or other health status, Vietnam Era Veteran or other military status, or other protected status established … At this stage, this Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the Indictment qualifies as a Claim “by or on behalf of” Mr.

Moton v. Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 8, 2025

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position and performed it satisfactorily; (3) she suffered an adverse … Thus, no issue of material facts exists as to whether Plaintiff was qualified for the job when she was hired. B.

Martin v. JBS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

443 F. Supp. 2d 962 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 16, 2006

Pursuant to the unambiguous language of section 7.2 in the Operating Agreement, Plaintiff qualifies for indemnification because she was an “employee or agent” of JBS during all relevant time periods. … The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities ....

Burger v. United States

748 F. Supp. 1265 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 19, 1990

Defendant alleges that it is immune from liability for its actions under the discretionary function exception of the FTCA. … Parole Release Decision The decision of whether to release a criminal offender on parole is clearly an exercise of discretion. Title 18 U.S.C.

Tucker

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 2025

In that three-step framework, Tucker must first establish a prima facie case of her respective claim. Id. … For one, the Sixth Circuit “has established a relatively high bar for what amounts to actionable discriminatory conduct under a hostile work environment theory.” Khalaf v.

Allen v. Forren

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 3, 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. … As a final note, the Undersigned observes that certain claims Plaintiff asserts against certain Defendants are likely barred as a matter of law due to judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, or the fact that some Defendants

Quarles v. City Of Zanesville

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 7, 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. … was clearly on notice that the training in this particular area was deficient and likely to cause injury.’”

In Re National Liquidators, Inc.

182 B.R. 186 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 18, 1995

The Court is not establishing a high threshold. … In fact, the record establishes the converse.

Lovett v. Evans

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 27, 2025

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. … Stated another way, a plaintiff must allege and prove facts that establish an objectively intolerable risk of serious harm. Id. at 842, 846 n.9.

Matter of Baldwin-United Corp.

43 B.R. 443 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 31, 1984

Indemnification for costs incurred in the defense of the good faith exercise of their business judgment is an appropriate and necessary expense in order to attract qualified persons to serve in that capacity. … Since they clearly will not do so unless their claims for payment will be paid ahead of the prepetition debts and liabilities of the debtor, § [503(b)(1)(A)] provides a priority for expenses incurred by the debtor-in-possession

Kelly v. United States Postal Service

492 F. Supp. 121 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 21, 1980

The language on the tee-shirt and button were clearly visible. Hauck had on no shirt other than the tee-shirt. … But to take action against plaintiffs because of the political ideas they espouse is clearly unlawful and just as clearly unpatriotic.

Berry v. Meintel

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 5, 2023

“A state court’s adjudication only results in an ‘unreasonable application’ of clearly established federal law when ‘the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s decisions … Decisions by lower courts are relevant “to the extent [they] already reviewed and interpreted the relevant Supreme Court case law to determine whether a legal principle or right had been clearly established by the Supreme

Thompson

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

And protected conduct under the First Amendment is not limited to formal grievances or petitions; submitting non-frivolous, informal complaints can qualify as protected First Amendment conduct. … As to the third element, it is Plaintiff who bears the initial burden of establishing that Defendants acted with a retaliatory motive.