Case law

Coal Resources, Inc. v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc.

645 F. Supp. 1028 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 15, 1986

The Court also awarded prejudgment interest on that sum at the rate established in Ohio Rev.Code § 1343.03. … This Court determined that both Barker and Owens were qualified to express their opinions based upon the fact that their knowledge of the subject is such that it would assist the jury in arriving at the truth.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. OVO Wealth Management, LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 2019

Once the SEC establishes a prima facie violation, the defendant assumes the burden of proving that the security qualifies for a registration exemption. SEC v. Ralston-Purina Co., 346 U.S. 119, 126 (1953). … Furthermore, as referenced above, once the SEC establishes a prima facie violation of Section 5 (which it has), the defendant assumes the burden of proving that the security qualifies for a registration exemption, and

Little v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.

227 F. Supp. 2d 838 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 20, 2002

Of vital importance is understanding that removal jurisdiction in this type of situation does not rest upon a finding that the state claims are preempted, but upon a finding that Congress clearly intended for removal jurisdiction … Abbot Defendants contend that “courts have repeatedly held that any person or entity subject to ‘complex regulations, guidelines and evaluation schemes’ qualifies for federal officer removal.”

Weber v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 2022

Based on these findings, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not under a benefits-qualifying disability prior to April 19, 2019. Id. at 50. … The ALJ’s explanation for finding CNP Hatton’s opinion unpersuasive prior to the onset date he established of April 19, 2019 is clearly articulated and supported by substantial evidence.

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland

512 F. Supp. 2d 1082 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 24, 2007

Taft, 223 F.Supp.2d 932 (S.D.Ohio 2002), concluding that: Section 2907.31, as amended by House Bill 8, criminalized the display of material that is clearly protected speech, such as nudity that is not sexually explicit or … Defendants claim that the posting of the information on Tepper's website would qualify as a "method of mass distribution” under 2907.31(D).

Schul v. Sherard

102 F. Supp. 2d 877 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 24, 2000

as part of the § 1983 claim set forth in Count I. 7 .Given its finding that Schul has not been deprived of any right secured by the Constitution, the Court need not address the Defendants' alternative arguments regarding qualified … immunity or municipal liability under Monell v.

Davis

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 2026

Moreover, as the Court determined previously, and reviews below, Davis is clearly in privity with JDLF as his solo law firm, and Williams is in privity with WEB Ventures. … And, in any event, whether he actually exercised control over the litigation or not, he clearly had the right to control it.

Mzozoyana v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 10, 2022

Director Hepker justified her decision by noting that Plaintiff “failed to take the proactive steps to clearly and specifically recuse [herself] from the processes resulting in [her husband’s] selection.” … Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie claim of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence.

PCA-Corrections, LLC v. Akron Healthcare LLC

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

That intent does not come across so clearly as PCA suggests. … Such conclusory argumentation is insufficient to establish grounds for attachment under R.C. 2715.01(A)(10). C.

Morton v. O'Brien

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2020

A “threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken” qualifies as a false, deceptive or misleading representation. § 1692e(5). … In moving for summary judgment, plaintiff has failed to establish that the alleged false statement and threat in the letter were material.

Stuckey v. Online Resources Corp.

909 F. Supp. 2d 912 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 9, 2012

In Roush , a defendant who waited until 31 days prior to trial was barred from raising an affirmative defense of statutory immunity. 2010 WL 3037003 , at *2-3, 2010 U.S. Dist. … Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that ITS Stockholders were damaged, and that such damage was caused not by the ITS Stockholders, but by ORC. B.

Johns v. CR Bard

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 2020

The Court reiterates, however, that an expert must be qualified to testify as to the adequacy of warnings from a regulatory or legal perspective and an expert must be qualified to testify as to whether a warning adequately … The rule encompasses all facts and circumstances which, when tested by human experience, tend to show that a witness may shade his testimony for the purpose of helping to establish one side of a cause

Johnson v. Chambers-Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 17, 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. … He may have qualified as an indigent inmate under the policy at a later date. Indeed, it appears that his mail was sent on November 22, 2022.

El Bey v. Branstool

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 12, 2024

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. … Despite Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, it is well established that pro se and in propria persona are materially synonymous in this context. See Beatty v. Caruso, 64 F.

Erwin v. Honda North America Inc

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 29, 2022

Erwin received treatment after seven days, which did not qualify her for FMLA. … Qualified Individual Regarding whether Plaintiff was qualified, Defendant cites Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony that, between May 2017 and January 2020, she was able to perform her job,

Mitchell v. City Of Cincinnati

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 14, 2021

"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only if the movant carries [its] burden of proving that the circumstances clearly demand it." Overstreet v. … The vital public interest here deserves a thoughtful and thorough approach to ensure that CPD [ ] promotes all qualified candidates fairly and constitutionally." Kohler, 2021 WL 1558334, at *5.

Options Unlimited Research Corp v. Western & Southern Financial Group, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 3, 2025

The SLA establishes just such a relationship. … First, it questions whether object code generally can ever qualify as a trade secret.

Glenn v. Basham

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 26, 2024

Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Little Caesar Enters., Inc. v. 2 In his reply brief, defendant argues that plaintiff cannot establish a First Amendment retaliation claim. (Doc. 42 at PAGEID 271-72). … action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which prohibits any person “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State” from depriving a United States citizen “of any rights, privileges or immunities

Summers v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 27, 2023

The ALJ “need not discuss listings that the [claimant] clearly does not meet, especially when the claimant does not raise the listing before the ALJ.” Sheeks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 544 F. … “If, however, the record ‘raise[s] a substantial question as to whether [the claimant] could qualify as disabled’ under a listing, the ALJ should discuss that listing.” Id. at 641 (quoting Abbott v.

Jetter v. City of Cincinnati

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2021

“Where, as here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must clearly allege facts demonstrating each element.” Id. … (Doc. 9 at 15, n.5) (“…Cincinnati Ordinance 276-2017 establishes the City’s residential CRA policy.”)