Case law

Payton v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 10, 2019

Supporting Facts: Clearly the fact that I accepted a plea deal without any benefits to myself, supports the fact that I was not thinking clearly. … A habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he establishes that (1) “he has been pursuing his rights diligently;” and (2) “some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.”

Deboer Structures (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Shaffer Tent & Awning Co.

233 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 23, 2002

The parties clearly manifested their intent to be bound in the event their joint bid was accepted by the PGA. … Further, the parties clearly manifest the sorts of duties they would jointly undertake in performing the PGA contract.

United States v. Elsass

978 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 17, 2013

(CCH) 1078 (1986) (“To qualify for a theft loss deduction, a taxpayer must establish his basis in inherited property before such loss can be determined.”); 26 U.S.C. § 102 (income from inheritance ordinarily not taxable). … Schneider’s year of discovery is clearly 2004. All previous refunds we obtained for Investors have used the year 2004 as the year the loss was discovered.

Bradley

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 11, 2026

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. … Further, when considering a pro se plaintiff’s Complaint, a Court “must read [the allegations] with less stringency . . . and accept the pro se plaintiff’s allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly

Woods v. Rumer

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 8, 2025

Constitutional Violation Claims 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows a plaintiff to seek redress from state actors for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution … Objectively speaking, this care qualifies as “cruel and unusual” only if it is “so grossly incompetent” or so grossly “inadequate” as to “shock the conscience” or “be intolerable to fundamental fairness

Wedgewood Ltd. Partnership I. v. Township of Liberty

456 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 12, 2006

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof tó the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … This is clearly not a physical abuse case to which the "shocks the conscience” standard applies. 36 .

NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture

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

Cir. 2017) (“Economic harm to a business clearly constitutes an injury-in-fact.”). … “Redressability is typically more difficult to establish where the prospective benefit to the plaintiff depends on the actions of independent actors.” Id.

Bibb v. Malek and Malek Attys at Law

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

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. … First, as a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s Complaints are procedurally deficient on their face, as they do not clearly state the legal injury he allegedly suffered. See Fed. R. Civ.

Northgate Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 17, 2020

As is evident from this description, the parties’ representations are contradictory, and they clearly concern a material issue of fact: whether Northgate substantiated the 2000-mile minimum necessary to qualify … Such audit reports seem to be a “regular practice,” and Reichert appears to qualify as a custodian.

Hawes v. Macy's, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 22, 2022

First, that section of the standing order clearly pertains to what witnesses must be listed on the Final Pretrial Order. Id. … questions framed as common to the class are indeed common, commonality cannot be established.”

Bibb v. Malek and Malek

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

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. … First, as a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s Complaints are procedurally deficient on their face, as they do not clearly state the legal injury he allegedly suffered. See Fed. R. Civ.

The Scotts Company LLC v. SBM Life Science Corp.

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

The Court does not read “with” to be a non-limiting qualifier in this instance. … Qualifiers such as “including, but not limited to,” “for example,” or—as stated in this very sentence—“such as,” are non-limiting qualifiers that leave open the possibility for other examples.

Nilavar v. Mercy Health System-Western Ohio

494 F. Supp. 2d 604 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 5, 2005

by an appellate court on a de novo basis, but the conclusion that the relevant markets are defined by particular products bought and sold in a particular geographic location is a question of fact, and is subject to the “clearly … Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104 , 107 S.Ct. 484 , 93 L.Ed.2d 427 (1986), we reaffirmed that injury, although causally related to an antitrust violation, nevertheless will not qualify as “antitrust injury” unless it

Glaze v. Morgan

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 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. … Plaintiff claims he asked John Doe #3 for mental health treatment prior to the incident, but “[t]he mental health officer cause he clearly is not a doctor blatantly told me, ‘there is nothing he can do for me.’”

Brown v. Ohio State University

616 F. Supp. 2d 740 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2009

However, speculation ungrounded in fact is insufficient to establish pretext. Hartsel v. … Rather, Mansfield clearly had developed his own reasons for demoting and terminating Brown.

Brinkman v. Gilligan

446 F. Supp. 1232 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 15, 1977

(T.R.1-1505) Whatever the effects of this reorganization may have been, its purpose was clearly integrative rather than segregative. … This clearly was plaintiffs’ view in their pretrial brief filed prior to the first hearing in this case: “. . .

Freeman v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (In re E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. C-8 Personal Injury Litig.)

348 F. Supp. 3d 680 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 12, 2016

Bahnson is qualified to give an expert opinion as to the specific cause of Mr. Freeman's testicular cancer and/or his potential for future cancer. Dr. … Rickard are clearly inadmissible as opinions that go to general causation.

Aniyunwiya

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2026

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. … Treadway, 75 F.3d 230, 240 (6th Cir. 1996) (“Sixth Circuit precedent clearly holds that new parties may not be added after the statute of limitations has run”); Fed. R. Civ.

Abington Emerson Capital, LLC v. Adkins

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 8, 2021

To obtain the in limine exclusion of evidence, a party must prove that the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. Luce, 469 U.S. at 41 n.4. … “In other words, a party cannot qualify as an expert generally by showing that the expert has specialized knowledge or training which would qualify him or her to opine on some other issue.” CDA of Am. Inc. v.

Kelly v. First Data Corporation

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 27, 2020

The Court is not required to accept an allegation that is clearly contradicted by an exhibit attached to the complaint. … Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (Count III) In order to establish a prima facie case under Title VII and the PDA, Kelly must allege that she: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified