Case law

Spence v. Sheets

675 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.

Stringer v. National Football League

749 F. Supp. 2d 680 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2010

This argument clearly goes to the question of a causation, not duty. … Both cases are clearly distinguishable from the present case, and neither involved the question of whether causation can be established in a failure-to-wam case by showing that a non-injured, non-user would have conducted

Tolliver

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2026

Sep. 27, 2022) (noting that to establish liability under RLUIPA, a plaintiff must establish personal involvement). … Then, to put measures in place that ensure the contractors chosen are reasonably qualified and willing to perform the rites and rituals[.]”); Doc. 71-1 at 8–9 (same)).

LifeBio, Inc. v. Eva Garland Consulting, LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 4, 2023

Evid. 502(e) explains that this section “codifies the well-established proposition” that parties may agree “to limit the effect of waiver by disclosure between or among them.” See also Rajala v. … In this case, the parties agreed: c. if any document or ESI (including, without limitation, metadata) received by a party is on its face clearly subject to a legally recognizable

Stoller v. Baldwin-United Corp.

650 F. Supp. 341 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 16, 1986

In this case, all qualifying class members who have not excluded themselves will share in the Settlement Fund if the Settlements are approved by the District Court. … The Request for Exclusion should clearly indicate either Stoller action, No. C-l-82-1438, or Bedel action, No. C-l-83-1990, or both the Stoller and Bedel actions. D.

Worrall ex rel. Worrall v. Irwin

890 F. Supp. 696 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 1, 1994

Mere passive acquiescence to a court order does not suffice to establish the existence of the agreement or of a conspiracy. See id.; see also Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1048 ; Dykes v. … Peck, 844 F.2d at 1267-68 (distinguishing between qualified immunity and good faith defense). 3 Accordingly, IDS Financial Services’ motion for summary judgment is well taken. y.

United States v. Neufeld

908 F. Supp. 491 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 27, 1995

Neufeld has focused his practice on treating HIV-positive patients. and those afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (“AIDS”). Dr. … Congress established Medicare under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1395 et seq. Congress established Medicaid under Title XIX of the Social Security Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.

Klusty v. Taco Bell Corp.

909 F. Supp. 516 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 20, 1995

The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. … .3d 689 , 591 N.E.2d 1332, 1333, 1336 (1990) (treating plaintiffs allegations that she was falsely promised continued employment with the intention of causing her to detrimentally rely on the assurances as insufficient to qualify

Lowes v. Baldwin

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 2019

Lowes was not “otherwise qualified” to be an FCSO deputy as a matter of law. 2. … Lowes’s reading of the Sheriff’s Sick Leave Policy is a possible one and that the FCSO could have written its policy more clearly. But Ms.

Dawson-Durgan v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 29, 2021

Contrary to Petitioner’ argument, the Supreme Court of Ohio clearly held in Morgan v. … Petitioner has not presented any new evidence of his actual innocence so as to qualify under the McQuiggin exception.

Bates v. Dyer

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 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. … Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010), or “clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F. App’x 427, 429-30 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Denton, 504 U.S. at 33).

McLindon v. Russell

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

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 … Although the Court has not yet set a dollar amount on any award of fees, plaintiff’s request of $14,616.00 clearly exceeds this amount. .

Trustees Main/270 LLC v. ApplianceSmart Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 4, 2025

“It is well established that ‘[w]hether or not to grant a motion in limine falls within the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, No. 2:07-cv-568, 2012 WL 5878873, at *2 (S.D. … Courts should “exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when that evidence is determined to be clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Delay, 2012 WL 5878873, at *2.

Blassingame v. Trihealth Inc.

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

Blassingame has a clearly identifiable disability which the city neglected to care for while Mr. Blassingame was in its custody on November 5, 2020.” (Doc. 29 at PAGEID 221). … “It is firmly established that a municipality . . . cannot be held liable under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.” Gregory v.

Bradley v. Miller

96 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2015

The Court need not dwell on whether the remaining acts could qualify as transactions because they are wholly unrelated to the Ponzi scheme. … The cited check clearly identifies the payor as F.D. Jaffe & Co, Inc. (Doc. 216, Ex. 3). Plaintiffs make no mention of this in their briefs. .

Rice v. Jones

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 2023

Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a … 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.

Buck v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 3, 2020

Buck has not suggested how the failure to declare a mistrial proved judicial bias or was in any way an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. … “There is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent which holds that a state violates due process by permitting propensity evidence in the form of other bad acts evidence.” Bugh v.

Schumacher v. AK Steel Corp. Ret. Acc. Pension Plan

995 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 4, 2014

The real dispute here was the scope of the RIF releases, as the complaint’s proposed class definition clearly recognized. … However, as noted above, courts in this district have awarded rates above the Rubin rates for highly experienced and qualified lawyers. The Court concludes that an appropriate rate for Mr.

Wright v. Pickaway County General Health District

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 13, 2023

Defendant says Plaintiff was never qualified to be Health Commissioner. (Doc. 23 at 20–21). … challenged decision; (2) whether the remarks were isolated or part of a pattern of biased comments; (3) whether the remarks were made close in time to the challenged decision; and (4) whether the remarks were ambiguous or clearly

Harris v. Erdos

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2020

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. … Accordingly, plaintiff has not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his constitutional claims or that he will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction.