Case law

Moore v. Mitchell

531 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 18, 2008

However, in this case, the Ohio Supreme Court’s conclusion is so summary that it is not possible to determine whether it is in any way an application of clearly established federal law. … Clearly Established Law. It is clearly established United States Supreme Court law that a State may not exercise a peremptory challenges in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Hassell v. Chrysler Corp.

982 F. Supp. 515 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 1997

The plaintiffs have submitted an affidavit from a well-qualified professional engineer, Jerome Koziatek, who has worked on processing and obtaining patents on child-related products. … Previously issued patents clearly show an integrated child seat built into an adult size seat.

Maseru v. University Of Cincinnati

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 13, 2022

Under Sixth Circuit precedent, statistics are not admissible as evidence of pretext where the plaintiff does not establish the number of qualified minorities available in each labor market. Smith v. … However, UC has established that statistical evidence relating to the demographics of all of UC’s employees and the City of Cincinnati’s employees is clearly inadmissible.

Toler v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 23, 2021

Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Plaintiff was not under a benefits-qualifying disability. Id. at 133. V. … (neurological disorders), suggests that the ALJ may have understood Plaintiff to have a qualifying neurological disorder.

Milanesi v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 22, 2021

“First, the witness must be qualified by ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.’ … Sinha is not qualified to opine on the validity of biomaterial testing.

Hopper v. Bernstein Allergy Group

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 18, 2020

To prevail on a failure-to-accommodate claim, Hopper would need to establish: (1) she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she was otherwise qualified for the position; (3) Bernstein Allergy knew or had reason … Hopper clearly suffered from a disability under the ADA. See, e.g. Baum v. Metro Restoration Services, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00787, 2017 WL 2221704, at *3 (W.D. Ky.

Croce v. N.Y. Times Co.

345 F. Supp. 3d 961 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 6, 2018

Elements of a Claim To establish a defamation claim under Ohio law, the plaintiff must show: (1) that a false statement of fact was made, (2) that the statement was defamatory, (3) that the statement was published, (4) that … We note once more that these cases are old, but again we are of the opinion they clearly state the prevailing Ohio rule.

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lori's Gifts, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 13, 2025

Shepherd and “a class of qualified individuals with disabilities” who “have been screened out” of job positions with Lori’s Gifts. (Id. ¶ 62.) … For nondispositive matters, a district judge must “modify or set aside any portion of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

Jordan v. Pinkett-Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2023

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. … Issuing yet another warning to this particular plaintiff clearly would be of no benefit either to plaintiff or to this Court, since he seems unable to comply with the Court’s warnings or to fully comprehend that his claims

Zandvakili v. University Of Cincinnati

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2023

To establish a discrimination claim indirectly by circumstantial evidence, the plaintiff carries the burden of establishing a prima facie case. … UC makes qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment arguments, but the Court will just address UC’s argument on the merits, as it is dispositive.

Jordan v. Bush

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 24, 2023

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. … Issuing yet another warning to this particular plaintiff clearly would be of no benefit either to plaintiff or to this Court, since he seems unable to comply with the Court’s warnings or to fully comprehend that his claims

Willis v. Big Lots, Inc.

242 F. Supp. 3d 634 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 17, 2017

Further, there can be no serious dispute that Robbins Geller . is qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation. … Thus, “Basic allows plaintiffs to establish [price impact] indirectly.” Id. at 2416 .

Gragg v. UPS Pension Plan

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2022

As the aforementioned language clearly gives the Plan administrator exclusive authority in interpreting the Plans, this Court finds “arbitrary and capricious” review appropriate. … DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 419 (2005) (“Under long-established principles, [a plaintiff's] lack of diligence precludes equity's operation.”)). IV.

Williams v. Wright Patterson Air Force Base

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 26, 2022

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. … This Court is not required to accept the factual allegations set forth in a complaint as true when such factual allegations are “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F.

Jarrett v. Greene

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

“a qualifying event”; and by writing a false conduct report. … “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

Fedder v. Ohio Medical Transportation, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 12, 2023

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 … ) she was qualified for the position in question; and (4) she was treated differently from similarly situated individuals outside of her protected class.

Lawler v. Trinity Financial Services, LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 2024

Debt Collector The parties disagree about whether Defendant is an FDCPA-qualifying “debt collector.” … While Plaintiff’s opening brief is vague as to her theory for holding Defendant liable as a debt collector, she later more clearly articulates her theory that Defendant’s “principal purpose … is the collection of debts[

Brown v. Mohr

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 19, 2019

Eleventh Amendment Immunity Defendants maintain that the Eleventh Amendment extends immunity to the state Defendants from Plaintiff’s attempts to recover monetary damages against … App’x 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2011) (“the withholding of meals, while it may result in some discomfort to the prisoner, does not result in a health risk to the prisoner sufficient to qualify as a ‘wanton infliction of pain

Santiago v. Meyer Tool Incorporated

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 30, 2022

First, to establish a prima facie case for disability discrimination, Plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) she has a disability, (2) she is otherwise qualified for the position, with or without reasonable accommodation, (3) … Specifically, Defendants concede that a reasonable jury could determine that Plaintiff established that she has a disability, that Defendants were aware that she had a disability, that she was qualified for her position

Whisman v. Robbins

810 F. Supp. 936 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 29, 1992

On December 4, 1984, Whisman qualified for a twenty-year deferred pension benefit and was notified that he would begin receiving a pension at age 57 (Id. at 246-47). … The retirement plan submitted to this Court fails to clearly establish how benefits are calculated.