Case law

DOE v. Ohio Hi-Point School District Board of Education

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 2024

The individual Hi-Point Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because Jane Doe failed to establish a violation of any of their constitutional rights. (MSJ PageID 2212–13.) … Next, if the answer is yes, courts “must determine if the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id. 17 See Kentucky v.

United States v. Operation Rescue National

111 F. Supp. 2d 948 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 1999

so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. … This need not be proven by the government because clearly the defendants attempted to do so. Id. at 1171 n. 1.

O'Neill v. Adams County Jail

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

Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983) (applying “well-pleaded complaint” rule to “those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff … of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.

Jones v. Warden Madison Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 27, 2019

In any event, Jones has not shown that in this respect the Second District’s decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. … He was thus clearly qualified to testify as an expert treating physician. Dr.

Great American Life Insurance Company v. United States Department of the Interior

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2024

The Tucker Act is “a jurisdictional provision that operate[s] to waive sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources of law (e.g., statutes or contracts).” Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303, 1309 (Fed. … Thus, the only way that the Court can determine what qualifies as a “court of competent jurisdiction” is by effectively incorporating the Tucker Act.

Hardesty v. Kroger Co.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 1, 2020

I certainly didn’t need anyone’s input or approval to decide which qualified applicants to contact and which not to.” (Id.) … So the phone screens clearly contemplated independent judgment. Renfro, 497 F.3d at 577.

Dorsey v. Tompkins

917 F. Supp. 1195 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 29, 1996

One such requirement is the establishment of a JOBS program in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 681 et seq. … Plaintiffs assert that defendant has subjected them to a deprivation of rights, privileges or immunities granted them by federal law.

Nash v. City of Oakwood

94 F.R.D. 83 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 25, 1982

Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is an adequate class representative under the standards established by the Sixth Circuit. … class certification hearing, indicated .that she knew of no blacks in the Oakwood Public Safety Department, and that she did not want to work there knowing that no black females *87 were on the work force, these statements clearly

Groover

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

“KTS’s Conduct and Discipline Policy clearly set forth the attendance requirements for successful employment at KTS, and clearly articulates that these are mandatory requirements that must be met in order to be qualified … “The burden of establishing a prima facie case in a retaliation action is not onerous, but one easily met.” Nguyen 229 F.3d at 563.

Yazdian v. ConMed Endoscopic Technologies, Inc.

30 F. Supp. 3d 688 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 30, 2014

discharged; 3) that he was qualified for the position held; and 4) that he was replaced by someone outside of the protected class. … ConMed has clearly adduced a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharging Plaintiff — his unprofessional demeanor and inability to accept coaching and constructive criticism from his supervisor.

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co.

925 F. Supp. 1270 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 9, 1996

These swaps do not qualify as securities. … That expectation was clearly P & G’s sole decision. Thus, P & G’s claims in Count XIII are dismissed. D.

Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati

860 F. Supp. 417 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 9, 1994

again at such establishments. … These laws and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have identified three criteria that must be met for a group to qualify for special protection: 1.

Wells v. Nisbet Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 28, 2022

First, to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination a plaintiff must show that he “(1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position and performed it satisfactorily; (3) suffered an adverse … Under that approach, a plaintiff may establish his discriminatory discharge claim by showing (1) he or she is disabled; (2) otherwise qualified for the position, with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) suffered an

Walker

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 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 … “An action has no arguable legal basis when the . . . plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.

Bradds v. Marchbanks

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 27, 2021

plaintiff need only establish that (1) the conduct in controversy was committed by a person acting under color of law, and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, either constitutional or statutory.” … Bradds asserted that he was denied the Transportation Administrator position at the Highland County garage because of his age, that the position was given to a younger and less-qualified candidate, and that Defendants had

Leonard v. Hocking Metropolitan Housing Authority

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 2024

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.

Bushner v. Kerner

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 16, 2024

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. … However, to present a viable denial of access claim, Plaintiff must establish denial of any meaningful access. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996).

Pierson v. Neil

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 6, 2019

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. … “Itis firmly established that a municipality, or. ..a county, cannot be held liable under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.” Gregory v.

Griffin

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

And the state court unreasonably applies clearly established law when it correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts. White v. … “Federal law is clearly established only when it is embodied in a holding of the Supreme Court; dicta does not count.” Jones v. Bell, 801 F.3d 556, 564 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Thaler v.

McCain v. Farrar

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 12, 2021

Retaliation Claim To establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish that he engaged in protected conduct, suffered an adverse action that would deter a person of ordinary … Informal grievances may also qualify as protected First Amendment activity, so long as the grievances are not frivolous. Maben v. Thelen, 887 F.3d 252, 264 (6th Cir. 2018).