Case law

Melvin B. Clark v. Franklin County Probation Department

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2026

The Sixth Circuit employs a three-prong test, initially established in Maupin v. … Clark cannot establish a factual basis for a Confrontation Clause claim. The record unquestionably establishes that he was provided with the opportunity to cross-examine every state witness at trial.

Anthony E. Williams v. Sgt. Franklin

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 19, 2026

DISCUSSION Though Defendant Franklin’s Motion for Summary Judgment primarily argues that judgment should be granted in his favor by virtue of qualified … immunity, the Court does not need to reach that question.

McEntire v. Jancoa Janitorial Services Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 25, 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. … Humana, Inc., 684 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2012), the Sixth Circuit clarified that even though Swierkiewicz established that a complaint alleging employment discrimination need not establish all elements of proof under

Ringel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

295 F. Supp. 3d 816 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 27, 2018

Ringel clearly resulted in an inordinately large past-due award. While Ms. … But again, the fact that counsel was guilty of no misconduct does not immunize her fee from windfall reduction. Nor does the fact that Ms.

Kister v. State of Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 29, 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 … 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.

Benner v. DeJoy

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 16, 2021

BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s Complaint is difficult to parse, but his claims clearly arise out of his former employment with the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). … 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.

McLindon v. Russell

108 F. Supp. 2d 842 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 16, 1999

The provision immediately following section 1997e(d)(2) states " No award of attorney's fees in an action described in paragraph (1) shall be based on an hourly rate greater than 150 percent of the hourly rate established … to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

Wilson v. Ancestry.com LLC

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

Communications Decency Act Ancestry additionally argues that it is entitled to immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), which “immunizes … that Ancestry is a ‘passive conduit’ that should receive immunity under the CDA”); Knapke, 553 F.

General Motors Corp. v. Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

467 F. Supp. 1142 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 18, 1979

The use of such references clearly would discourage inventors from disclosing new concepts. … On the basis of the foregoing review, the CM-714 converter clearly constitutes pertinent prior art. As was established earlier, the ‘041 patent was invented in early February, 1971.

Thomas

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 11, 2026

Notably, however, Plaintiff conflates immunity with capacity which are distinct concepts. Fleenor v. … established rights.

AMCO Insurance v. Lauren-Spencer, Inc.

500 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2007

On the other hand, an insurer need not defend any action or any claims within the complaint when all the claims are clearly and indisputably outside of the contracted policy coverage. Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. … The case has been roundly criticized and at present appears to be only cited as an example of what the law is clearly not.

Senterra Limited v. Rice Drilling D, LLC, et al.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 20, 2025

“Judgment may be granted under Rule 12(c) where the moving parties clearly establish that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Williamson v. … Ohio courts have explained that “the [Ohio] legislature clearly contemplated that issuance of a drilling permit would be a relatively straightforward ministerial act.” Simmers v. N.

Griffin v. Defense Logistics Agency

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 9, 2023

To establish such a claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; (4) his employer … The record clearly indicates that Plaintiff’s performance always had room for improvement and that he largely ignored concerns raised by supervisors in formal and informal feedback.

Shaffer v. City of Columbus

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

A claim of intentional discrimination under Title II requires proof that the plaintiff 1) had a qualifying disability, 2) was otherwise qualified to participate in the public program, service, or activity at issue, and … Shaffer had a qualifying disability, or that she was “otherwise qualified to participate” in the public program, service, or activity at issue.2 Instead, Defendants first argue that they cannot be held liable because

Graham

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 2025

But the Court is not required to accept factual allegations that are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F. App’x 427, 429–30 (6th Cir. 2009). … Further, “[i]t is well-established that the presence of some unsanitary conditions in a cell (including fecal matter) does not establish an Eighth Amendment claim, except in circumstances where the volume of matter and

Carter v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

870 F. Supp. 1438 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 16, 1994

In order to qualify for immediate pension payments under the enhancement provisions of December 1989, one must have 30 years of service or have attained the age of 50, including the additional five years, at the time the … In the Defendants’ brief, the Defendants state that “[t]he Pension Plan clearly gives the Committee such discretionary authority....” Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 31 (doc. 22). The Committee reviewed Ms.

Templeton v. Brandt

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 7, 2021

In part, all of that may be because Templeton does not even clearly identify what constituted the allegedly “excessive force.” … City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001)], taken together, clearly establish that warrantless in-home arrests for misdemeanor offenses absent consent or exigency violate the Fourth Amendment.” Denton v.

McDaniel v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group

364 B.R. 644 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 8, 2007

However, the adversary claims against the other parties are “clearly not core matters.” 8. … From this, McDaniel concludes that the Bankruptcy Court has established its own rule of law for the adversary claims to proceed in bankruptcy court.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 15, 2022

Courts should exclude evidence pursuant to a motion in limine “only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Ind. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004). … See Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 869 (“(1) The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that he or she is disabled. (2) The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that he or she is ‘otherwise qualified’ for the position despite

Hollis v. Erdos

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 12, 2020

In particular, they claim that he is entitled either to judgment on the pleadings or to qualified immunity. … As neither Count I nor Count VI set forth a viable § 1983 claim against the Warden, discussion of qualified immunity is unnecessary.