Case law

Marshall v. Snider-Blake Personnel

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 8, 2022

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. … The nature of Plaintiff’s claim is not clearly stated.

Thacker v. Warden Noble Correctional Institution

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

Thacker has presented no new evidence of his actual innocence and thus does not qualify for that exception to procedural default. … The alleged error must have ‘substantially affected the outcome of the trial,’ such that ‘but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.’ ”(Citations omitted.)

Broomfield v. Baily

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 28, 2025

Although 48 pages of exhibits are included with that memorandum, the exhibits are not clearly identified and Plaintiff fails to cite to most of them. … Appx. 520, 524-25 (6th Cir. 2002) (“an inmate cannot immunize himself from adverse administrative action by prison officials merely by filing a grievance or a lawsuit and then claiming that everything that happens to him

Malone v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2022

established Supreme Court precedent. … Such charge, or other charge or instruction provided for in this section, when so written and given, shall not be orally qualified, modified, or explained to the jury by the court.

Merck v. Walmart Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 2021

At the pleading stage, the plaintiff must “clearly allege facts demonstrating each element” required to establish standing. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (quotation omitted) (cleaned up). … While holding that “reckless disregard of a requirement of FCRA would qualify as a willful violation[,]” the Supreme Court in Safeco noted that “a company subject to FCRA does not act in reckless disregard of it unless

United States v. Consolidation Coal Co.

184 F. Supp. 2d 723 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 31, 2002

Indeed, the district judge who penned the decision upon which Neville primarily relies clearly recognized this point. See Amland Properties Corp. v. … “It is well established that flexibility is proper in the successful shaping ... of an equitable decree.” United States v.

Carter v. RelaDyne Transportation, LLC.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2024

The first step of this framework requires a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case for discrimination. Id. at 363. … To establish a prima facie case for sex discrimination, a plaintiff must show that she was: (1) a member of a protected class, (2) qualified for the position, (3) the victim of an adverse employment action, and (4) replaced

Jackson v. Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc.

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

| Commonality To establish commonality, there must be “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). … Continued litigation would have required substantial time, effort, and expense, both to retain qualified experts and to conduct record review and depositions.

Aerpio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Quaggin

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2019

The NASDAQ Court held that the parties had “not clearly and unmistakably delegated arbitrability” there given that “a broad arbitration clause [wa]s subject to 25 a qualifying provision … However, the arbitration provision qualifies application of the AAA Rules by stating the Rules will apply “[e]xcept as provided herein.” (/d.).

Wolters v. Warden, Belmont Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 15, 2024

established precedent of the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. … His sole claim appears to be that Nurse Clark was not qualified enough. But the Supreme Court in Craig did not impose any particular qualifications on the testimony needed to satisfy the Sixth Amendment.

Oswald v. Lakota Local School Board

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 9, 2024

Criticizing rules such as mask mandates promulgated by the Board clearly is not proscribed by the Public Participation Policy as Oswald claims. Assuming arguendo that “the content of [Mr. … In making this determination, this Court must remain mindful that not all expression one wants to make in a limited-public setting qualifies as protected speech under the First Amendment. B. Mr.

Stanko v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 5, 2023

“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. (quoting Abbott v. … Finally, the ALJ clearly considered plaintiff’s work history, as she referenced plaintiff’s inconsistent statements related thereto. (See Tr. 22).

Barta v. Esper

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 2022

“To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection.” … Moreover, Conrad, the selecting official, concluded that Quinlan, who was ultimately selected for the position, was more qualified than Plaintiff: • Conrad “rated Mr.

Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 20, 2019

Legal Framework for Disability Determinations To qualify for SSI, a claimant must suffer from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has lasted or can … This is clearly a typographical error on the ALJ’s part. As the ALJ noted elsewhere in her decision, plaintiff did report increased activity levels including bike riding and the ability to walk one mile.

Corbett v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2022

The ALJ initially found that Plaintiff’s date last insured was December 31, 2010, and thus, Plaintiff needed to establish disability on or before that date to be awarded DIB. (R. 20–21, 22.) … Although a claimant bears the burden of proving that he cannot perform his past work at step four, “the ALJ has a duty to make adequate findings on the record that ‘clearly and explicitly’ resolve the issue of a claimant

Smith v. Thalheimer

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 25, 2021

claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … 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.

Jewett v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 20, 2019

Jewett did not object to the trial court qualifying him as an expert on giving estimates of weights of drugs based on appearance. … this testimony is first established.

Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company v. Case

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2024

Although the court found that the decedent clearly intended to change the beneficiary, it could not allow “the insured’s ‘clearly expressed intent’ to prevail over a valid court order” because such a result would “subvert … Finally, Stewart is not immunized because Case suffered the prior, emotionally distressing death of his mother. See Caparanis v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:13-cv-926, 2013 WL 6626839, at *8 (N.D.

Cardinal Health, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 2021

Co., 632 F.3d 250, 253 (6th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that in declaratory judgment actions “it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation,” or in other words … In passing the act, Congress ‘created an opportunity, rather than a duty, to grant a new form of relief to qualifying litigants.’”) (quoting Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286–89 (1995)).

Premier Dealer Services, Inc. v. Allegiance Administrators, LLC

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

But nothing in the contract explains what qualifies as either party’s property. … Whether information qualifies as a trade secret is ordinarily a question of fact. DeBoer Structures (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Shaffer Tent And Awning Co., 233 F. Supp. 2d 934, 948 (S.D.