Case law

Cooley v. P & C Motel Corp.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 2, 2022

Plaintiff Christopher Cooley is an individual with vision and hearing impairments that qualify as disabilities under federal2 and state3 law. … The allegations contained within the First Amended Complaint clearly state a cause of action for disability discrimination under both federal and state law.

Doe v. The Mission Essential Group, LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 20, 2024

The plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing these elements” and must at the pleading stage “clearly ... allege facts demonstrating” each element. Spokeo, Inc. v. … Plaintiff’s mitigation expenses were made on his own volition “based on a nonparanoid fear” and do not qualify as actual injuries. Lost Time and Effort.

Steelman v. Warden, London Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 13, 2020

They were clearly improper. … So the relevant question is not whether the state court’s decision was wrong, but whether it was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.”). Bowling v.

Stephenson v. Duriron Company

292 F. Supp. 66 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 1968

The American Radiator case is clearly distinguishable from the present case. … The burden is upon the insurance company to establish that the judgment was obtained through fraud. There is no evidence before the Court establishing that the Alaska judgments were procured by fraud.

Salisbury v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 5, 2024

Legal Framework for Disability Determinations To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must suffer from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result … This is clearly inconsistent with listing level dysfunction or the need for a two-handed assistive device.

Burwick v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2021

Based on these findings, the Administrative Law Judge ultimately concluded that Plaintiff was not under a benefits-qualifying disability. Id. at 78. V. … Indeed, “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.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

Legal Framework for Disability Determinations To qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must suffer from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result … Plaintiff claims that his pain and symptoms are clearly “not moderated” as shown by the medical evidence, which documents the medical treatment he has received “over an extended period of time for his back pain and conditions

Bates v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 3, 2022

The screening procedures established by § 1915 apply to complaints filed by prisoners against governmental entities, officials or employees regardless of whether the plaintiff has paid the filing fee, as in this case, or … 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.

Thomas

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 20, 2025

The settlement agreement further contemplates that the settlement administrator will establish a qualified settlement fund (QSF) according to 26 C.F.R. 4 In the event the administrator re-mails the claim … This clearly meets the numerosity requirement. See, e.g., Hunter v. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., No. 2:19-cv-411, 2023 WL 3204684, at *3 (S.D.

Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Cincinnati Milacron, Inc.

403 F. Supp. 1040 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 17, 1975

It is in order to note that a well-qualified observer, Ford’s Leroy E. … We find the defendant has not established this claim. “. . .

Louisiana Sheriffs Pension & Relief Fund v. Cardinal Health, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 27, 2021

explained that puffery is the “kind of rosy affirmation commonly heard from corporate managers and numbingly familiar to the marketplace—loosely optimistic statements that are so vague, so lacking in specificity, or so clearly … The Supreme Court has established a three-part test to determine whether a plaintiff’s scienter allegations are sufficiently pleaded. Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 322–24.

Johnson v. Warden, London Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 2020

There is no doubt that the Fayette County Jail qualifies as a “detention facility” for purposes of the statute. … established precedent of the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v.

Moore v. Morgan

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 2020

And the statement that he told Cadogan, Fellure, and Miller does not establish any knowledge on the part of the Additional Officers. … As the Court finds the Defendants did not violate the Eighth Amendment, the Court need not, and thus does not, consider the issue of qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Warden Ohio State Penitentiary

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 24, 2022

Nor does Attorney Warhola’s deposition shed much light on what was said given that he no longer clearly remembered it after the passage of so many years. … But the [depositions] also do not establish that counsel’s performance was substandard. (ECF No. 136, PageID 11174–75.)

Laake v. The Benefits Committee, Western & Southern Financial Group Company Flexible Benefits Plan

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 2021

plan is established or operated” per § 1024(b)(4). … Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Errata Sheets was also strong, as Defendants rewrote deposition testimony in violation of clearly established Sixth Circuit case law.

Barton v. Warden, Orient Correctional Institution

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

Thus, these elements of aggravated murder requiring the death to be purposely caused and caused while committing aggravated arson are clearly met. … established precedent of the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v.

Arnold Yerkes v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

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

If a plaintiff establishes discrimination and introduces evidence on the issue of damages, “the burden of producing sufficient evidence to establish the amount of interim earnings or lack of diligence shifts to the defendant … The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden to show that this proposed testimony is clearly inadmissible. See Ind. Ins. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d at 846.

Dawson v. Assured Partners

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 26, 2023

He clearly sounds like he does not get this.” (DX193 (DEF000346)). … To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that he was (1) a member of a protected class, (2) subject to an adverse employment action, (3) qualified for the position, and

Igal v. the U.S. Consulate General in Johannesburg

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 2024

Once the spouse is deemed “documentarily qualified,” he must complete an interview at the relevant U.S. Embassy. Akhter v. Blinken, No. 2:23-cv-1374, 2024 WL 1173905, at *1–2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2024). … To establish such an interest, “the plaintiff must demonstrate that the Constitution or a federal or state statute grants [her] a protected right.” Id.

Chapple, Jr. v. Unknown Officers

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 7, 2022

[or] seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief” in its initial screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)–(b). … The risks of exposure to human feces and blood are well-established and patently obvious. See Taylor, 505 F. App’x at 477; McCord v.