Case law

Board of Education of City School District of Cincinnati v. Department of Health, Education & Welfare

655 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 17, 1987

This is rather odd in light of the clearly evident focus of the memo. … Specifically, counsel for HEW said, "I don't know how to find what they were educationally qualified for because our experts said they they were not educationally qualified.

Caldwell v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

835 F. Supp. 2d 510 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 19, 2011

This language clearly indicates *523 that termination of employment by the employer is required to qualify for benefits under this section. … If plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to defendants to articulate a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action.

Claridge House, Inc. v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

795 F. Supp. 1393 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 12, 1991

The Secretary shall establish guidelines for approval of corrective actions requested by States under this subpar-agraph. (Emphasis added.) … Fundamentally, if the Secretary could terminate a facility with or without a finding of immediate jeopardy, there would be little point in distinguishing, as paragraph (3)(B) clearly does, between situations of immediate

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.

Coverdale v. Conley

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 6, 2020

Analysis Section §1983 permits recovery for the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” by a person acting under … Defendant argues that “Plaintiff’s attachments to his Complaint establish that there is no law to support the claims that he makes.” (Doc. 6 at 3, emphasis added).

Davison v. Department of Defense

560 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 28, 1982

Although NEPA establishes “significant substantive goals for the Nation,” Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. … This is clearly not the case, and the remainder of the EIS does not sufficiently disabuse the reader of these notions.

Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC

918 F. Supp. 2d 708 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 16, 2013

Plaintiffs were clearly aware that this issue was potentially dispositive of their argument that certain cases provide the necessary notice to permit class certification. … In Charvat , the court was faced with the issue of whether a consent judgment qualifies as a determination of a court within the language of § 1345.09(B).

Lawson v. Aramark Correctional Services LLC

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

immunity under the circumstances here. … As to the subjective element, Plaintiff wholly fails to establish this element.

Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Brunner

652 F. Supp. 2d 871 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 2009

Clearly, the 2006 Consent Order did not make Plaintiffs official election “observers” as that term is defined under the Ohio Revised Code. … A party qualifies as a “prevailing party” if it has obtained actual relief, such as an enforceable judgment or a consent decree, that materially alters the legal relationship between the parties, and directly benefits the

Oppenheimer v. City of Madeira, Ohio

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

The Court found that Defendants had established good cause to set aside any entry of default, and accepted the untimely answer. … (Accord Doc. 58 at 3, ¶ 7, PageID 486, noting “relatively straightforward” nature of claim that was clearly established by “binding precedent.”). The City advocates for a rate of $517.08 to apply to Mr.

Yukech v. California Transport, LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 2023

Because Plaintiff must prove her damages as part of her negligence claims against Defendants, whether Plaintiff’s injuries were “life-threatening” is an inquiry relevant to establishing Defendants’ liability. … Plaintiff responds that her documented injuries qualify her, on a factual basis, for an exemption from the limitations of the statute.

Tingler v. Kennedy

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 1, 2025

NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743 (1983) (“Just as false statements are not immunized by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, baseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right to petition.”) … Finally, the Hall Court held that the argument that Ohio’s vexatious litigator statute violated the Equal Protection Clause “clearly has no merit,” because Plaintiff had failed to “demonstrate that a discrimination of some

Marcum v. Duchak

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

In this instance, however, Marcum has demonstrated neither that the Court’s prior decision was clearly erroneous nor that a manifest injustice will occur if he is not permitted to proceed with an Equal Protection … immunity defense before damages could be awarded against Duchak on that claim.

Johnson v. Cool

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 29, 2024

However, when asserting qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage, a defendant is relieved of the threshold burden on that issue, and the plaintiff must instead affirmatively prove that the defendant is not subject … to qualified immunity.

Watson v. Ohio Ambulance Solutions, LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 22, 2023

Nor do defendants argue in their motion for summary judgment that plaintiff failed to establish that she suffered an adverse employment action or was otherwise qualified for her position. … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, the plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified for the

Chapman

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

that “the allegation of poverty is untrue” or “the action or appeal[:] (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … App’x 666, 668 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Although much of § 1915, by its terms, refers to prisoners, the principle is well- established that regardless of whether a litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis is a prisoner or

McDonald v. Franklin County, Ohio

306 F.R.D. 548 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 14, 2015

To the contrary, the Anended Complaint clearly defines three proposed classes without reference to a cross-gender class. See ECF No. 20 ¶ 7. … Regarding the second half of the inquiry, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that, judging from their resumes, her attorneys are qualified and experienced. See ECF Nos. 77-18, 77-19, 7720, and 77-21.

Lu v. University of Dayton

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 18, 2023

Second, UD argues that Lu cannot establish a prima facie case of Title VII discrimination because he cannot establish that he was qualified nor can he show that he was treated differently than a similarly-situated, non-protected … To establish that he was qualified for the full-time Photonics Job, Lu need only show that he satisfied UD’s “objective qualifications.” Upshaw v.

United Food & Commercial Workers, Local Union 1099 v. City of Sidney

174 F. Supp. 2d 682 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 2, 2001

such a decision to create a public forum, Plaintiffs had no First Amendment right to engage in expressive activities at any of the elementary schools listed in their Complaint. 7 Defendant Miller argues he is entitled to qualified … immunity for the claims against him in his individual capacity and, therefore, those claims must also be dismissed.

Elliott v. Stevens

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 3, 2024

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 … 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.