Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,956 results
0.58s
666 F. Supp. 2d 872 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2009
In order to prove that a tax levy was wrongful, the person challenging the levy must show interest in the property to establish standing. … Here, Tri sha has clearly established standing as she has title to Parcel G. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the IRS has proved a nexus between the property and Maurice and Patricia.
Cited 6 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 2, 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 … Jan. 26, 2004) (“If a statute of limitations defense clearly appears on the face of a pleading, the district court can raise the issue sua sponte”) (citing Pino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51, 53–54 (2d Cir.1995)).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 13, 2023
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. … ‘There is no clearly established right to counsel at parole suitability hearings.’ Lopez v. California, [No. 1:14-cv-504, 2014 WL 1839120, at *5, (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2014)].
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 18, 2022
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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFenley v. Wood Group Mustang, Inc.
170 F. Supp. 3d 1063 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 17, 2016
The Sixth Circuit has interpreted this provision as establishing two requirements for a representative action under the FLSA: Plaintiffs must (1) “actually be ‘similarly situated;’ ” and (2) “.. .must signal in writing their … WGM here relies on the theory that “an award of costs to a prevailing defendant in an FLSA case is clearly possible and is not merely theoretical...
Cited 33 timesPublishedKline v. Mortgage Electronic Security Systems
154 F. Supp. 3d 567 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 23, 2015
In his Response, Kline argues that the collection of the fees was clearly illegal under Ohio law. Doc. #466 at 20. … Third, he claims that, according to established case law and Mr. Perry’s own statements, post-acceleration late fees are improper. Id. at 13-14.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 21, 2020
Accordingly, “a writ of habeas corpus should be denied unless the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or … The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · May 18, 2026
The Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a revised motion to proceed in forma pauperis because her initial motion (ECF No. 1) did not contain enough information for the Court to determine whether Plaintiff qualifies … Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish an unconstitutional policy or custom on the part of Morrow County.
Cited 0 timesUnknown490 F. Supp. 2d 885 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 1, 2007
It has further established the value of the judgment and Elson’s attorneys fees with appropriate documentation. The Court has broad discretion in establishing the value of the harm to victims in restitution cases. … While they establish that Heinmiller incurred substantial fees in litigating her 60(B) motion, they do not establish that Defendants caused these fees; in fact, the invoices barely reference Defendants.
Cited 3 timesPublished267 F. Supp. 2d 794 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2003
Disability Discrimination Under the ADA, it is illegal for any covered entity to discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of that disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a). … ” “The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.
Cited 3 timesPublished485 F. Supp. 2d 831 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 4, 2007
Clearly, then, the FDPA does not limit the mitigating evidence Defendant may produce. … The indictment against Defendant clearly satisfies this requirement.
Cited 5 timesPublished163 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2001
Accordingly, where there is "hearsay within hearsay," i.e., statements that are not clearly based upon personal knowledge, the Court ' will ignore those passages. 6 . … Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff is a member of the protected class (female), that she suffered an adverse action, or that she is qualified for her position. 8 .
Cited 10 timesPublishedUnited State of America v. City Of Cincinnati
District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 15, 2021
Pursuant to this purpose, the Consent Decree contains a long-term goal of having African Americans and women in all sworn ranks of CPD, subject to the availability of qualified applicants, reach the proportions of qualified … In particular, the Consent Decree established the following numerical goals to be met on an annual basis: (1) vacancies for entry- level sworn police officer positions are to be filled with qualified applicants in the proportion
Cited 0 timesUnknownBoyce v. City Hall for Springfield Ohio
District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 11, 2019
from suit, or when the plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. … “To prevail on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that a person acting under color of state law deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Green v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownLeandro Pablo Coronado v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al.
District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 15, 2025
As already described, Coronado is an applicant for admission, and no one contends he qualifies for expedited removal under § 1225(b)(1). … But at the same time, even “a ‘long- established practice’ does not justify a rule that denied statutory text its fairest reading.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 329 (2015).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 15, 2025
But in the Court’s view, the rope is clearly arranged as it is for the purpose of doing just that—securing a tool. … Because Heard cannot establish she suffered from a hostile work environment or that FieldCore constructively discharged her, she did not establish that FieldCore took an adverse employment action against her.
Cited 0 timesUnknownEEOC v. The Ohio State University
District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 22, 2023
After all, it is well established that “[t]he standard for relevancy is ‘extremely liberal’ under the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Dortch v. … The Order required OSU to identify exhibits to be presented at trial clearly and individually. (Id. at 6–7).
Cited 0 timesUnknown675 F. Supp. 2d 792 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 18, 2009
Additionally, the state court’s decision is binding on this Court unless that decision is contrary to or involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court … Petitioner has failed to establish cause for his procedural defaults relating to these claims.
Cited 4 timesPublished703 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2010
It would only apply if Plaintiff were convicted of a registration-qualified offense. … Yet these penalties are clearly constitutional under Fort Wayne Books.” Alexander, 509 U.S. at 556 , 113 S.Ct. 2766 . “If the U.S.
Cited 0 timesPublished363 F. Supp. 730 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 12, 1973
This clause immunizes the trustee from liability to any remaindermen for invading the principal on the wife’s request by making her action sufficient justification. … This duty exists only where the trust instrument does not establish a preference. 7 There is no duty, under the express terms of this trust, for the trustee to determine whether any requests are made in good faith and whether
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna