Case law

Reeves v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 5, 2022

Based on these findings, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has not been under a benefits-qualifying disability since July 15, 2016. Id. at 79. … Hence, ALJ Adkins carefully considered the totality of the evidence, applied the proper standards, and clearly explained his consistency/credibility findings.

Bracken v. DASCO Home Medical Equipment, Inc.

954 F. Supp. 2d 686 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 27, 2013

Bracken’s claims clearly do not challenge the confidentiality or noncompetition issues. … To make out a prima facie case of employment discrimination through indirect evidence under Title I of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the position, with or without

WCI, Inc. v. Ohio Department Of Public Safety

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

The State of Ohio has neither constitutionally nor statutorily waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity in the federal courts. See, e.g., Johns v. Supreme Court of Ohio, 753 F.2d 524, 527 (6th Cir. 1985). … Diamonds cites no authority, however, establishing that due process requires anything more.

Ramirez v. Chambers-Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 2022

Alexis was clearly prejudiced by the lack of immigration advice he received from his counsel. Had he been advised that he will be deported, he would have taken his chances at trial. Lee v. … In contrast, when a prior petition is dismissed because the petitioner procedurally defaulted his claims in state court, the dismissal qualifies as a decision “on the merits.”

Stratton v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2023

Notably, “neither the listings nor the Sixth Circuit require the ALJ to ‘address every listing’ or ‘to discuss listings that the applicant clearly does not meet.’” Smith- Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 579 F. … Even so, the ALJ should discuss the relevant listing “where the record raises a ‘substantial question as to whether [the claimant] could qualify as disabled under a listing.” Id. (citing Abbott v.

Bold Home Products, LLC v. CarbonKlean, LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 2023

Therefore, “a plaintiff need not prove intent or willfulness to establish a . . . violation.” Id. … To establish defamation under Ohio law, Plaintiff must establish: (1) that a false statement of fact was made; (2) that the statement was defamatory; (3) that the statement was published; (4) that the plaintiff suffered

In Re: Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 7, 2019

Defendants are understood to assert that qualified privilege supports the sealing of court records they presently seek. … This testimony clearly links DRC Employee No. 1 with the acquisition of Ohio’s execution drugs.

Castellon-Vogel v. International Paper Company, A New York Corporation

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 2, 2020

A “former employee” qualifies as a “participant” only if the former employee has “a reasonable expectation of returning to covered employment” or a “colorable claim to vested benefits.” … (“Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, the Release clearly and unambiguously binds individual bargaining unit employees, as well as the Union.”).

Ruf

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 23, 2026

The Reds assert that these allegations “necessarily implicate” the CBAs because “[w]hat makes a professional baseball field ‘safe’ and ‘maintained,’ including how a tarp is positioned and stored, clearly depends … In other words, an alleged contractual breach—failure to provide a qualified workforce—formed “the essence of the plaintiff’s claim” DeCoe, 32 F.3d at 216 (citation omitted).

Jack Conie & Sons Corp. v. Qualstan Corp. (In Re Qualstan Corp.)

303 B.R. 149 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 23, 2003

The “thereon” language in the statute qualifies the language “to improve real estate.” … The statute clearly states that the lien only has priority over mechanics’ liens only to the extent that the proceeds are used and applied for the purposes of the construction loan section.

Oro Capital Advisors, LLC v. Borror Construction Co., LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 15, 2020

App’x 381, 385 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Once the district court correctly determined that [MTI’s] obligation to purchase TMSS’s parts inventory arose from the Distributor Agreement, it was established that the conversion claim … Where Plaintiffs’ Complaint clearly falls short, however, is identifying where, how, and to whom these misrepresentations were communicated.

Mann v. University of Cincinnati

824 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 24, 1993

The Sixth Circuit has clearly stated that, with respect to them medical records, “[i]t is firmly established that individuals have a constitutionally protected right to privacy.” Gutierrez v. … The discovery rules were rearranged, establishing Rule 26 as the Rule governing discovery in general. Fed. R.Civ.P.

State Of Ohio v. Secretary, Department of Treasury

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

That is, the limitation is not directed at the substance of the conditions, but rather at ensuring, as a drafting matter, that the conditions are clearly expressed. … Second, and relatedly, the Constitution requires the federal government to express clearly the terms of the deal that it is offering to the States.

Dixon v. Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution

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

Even if we were to accept that this conduct qualified as serious provocation, Dixon's own testimony establishes that she did not act out of sudden passion or in a fit of rage. … We also are unpersuaded that the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Cox v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

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

The Court may grant relief only if that state-court adjudication “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or … Rather, the decision must have been “mutually opposed],]” id. at 406, to clearly established federal law, which encompasses only the holdings of Supreme Court decisions, and not their dicta.

Jacobs v. Warden, Southeastern Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 2023

“A state court’s adjudication only results in an ‘unreasonable application’ of clearly established federal law when ‘the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s decisions … Decisions by lower courts are relevant “to the extent [they] already reviewed and interpreted the relevant Supreme Court case law to determine whether a legal principle or right had been clearly established by the Supreme

Plan Administrator v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc

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

Six of those—only one of which was a West Virginia case—cited Wetzel as establishing that a corporation is a “person” qualified to file a notice of lien,6 and none of those held that “work of an individual character” was … These two sentences establish that a corporation is treated as a “person” under West Virginia ‘s mechanic’s lien laws.

Dunlap v. Paskett

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 16, 2022

Case No. 1:99-cv-559 Page 7 of 22 qualified any reliance on those proceedings: because of the different aggravating circumstances and mitigating factors at issue. … As noted above, the Court clearly said that “future dangerousness’” was not an aggravating circumstance that could be stacked on the death-side of the scale, ECF No. 185, at PAGE ### 9637-38.

A. F. v. Association of American Medical Colleges

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2023

Wright provide precedent that a diagnosis evaluation alone qualifies an individual as disabled under the ADA. … The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits.

Feaster v. Chambers-Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 19, 2022

immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … “Failing to follow proper procedures is insufficient to establish an infringement of a liberty interest.” Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 574, 576 (citing Olim v.