Case law

Boyce v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2023

established precedent of the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. … To prevail, a habeas petitioner “must show that such a botched interpretation violated clearly established United States Supreme Court decisions.

Chapple, Jr. v. Unknown Officers

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2022

The Sixth Circuit has recognized that “disciplinary measures based on a pretrial detainee’s misconduct in custody must be proportional thereto in order to avoid qualifying as unconstitutional punishment.” … “To establish a cognizable claim under RLUIPA, the inmate must first demonstrate that a prison policy substantially burdens a religious practice.” Id.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 25, 2025

Bolz clearly articulated that he found plaintiff to “fall[] between two not disabled rules” of “light and sedentary.” (Tr. 99-100). … The ALJ acknowledged that “[plaintiff]’s record certainly establishes his difficulty for sitting/standing, and chronic pain.” (Tr. 24).

Grado, M.D. v. Medical, Industrial, and Scientific Products Corporation

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 2024

But the allegations in the Amended Complaint did not clearly establish JMG’s citizenship given it contains contradictory indicators as to whether JMG is a corporation or an LLC. (See Doc. 11). … Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 894 (2008) (“Qualifying [privity] relationships include, but are not limited to, preceding and succeeding owners of property.”); cf.

Johnson, Jr. v. NaphCare, Inc.

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

Private medical professionals who provide health care services to inmates at a county jail qualify as a government official acting under the color of state law for the purposes of § 1983. Id.; Harrison v. … Regardless of the source, though, the right itself is well established.

In Re: Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation

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

Thus, it would be legally impossible for anyone alleging only sensations of drowning or suffocating to establish an Eighth Amendment violation in connection with a method of execution.” …  Eighth Cause of Action—Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause Violations For Experimenting On Non-Consenting Prisoners ;  Ninth Cause of Action—Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities

Calloway Cleaning & Restoration, Inc. v. Burer

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

At trial, Plaintiff clearly asserted joint liability only as to two of its damage claims. … In Max Rack, Inc., LLC, 40 F.4th at 478, the Sixth Circuit similarly considered what might qualify as an “exceptional” case under the Lanham Act: The plaintiff might have an unusually strong (or unusually weak) case

MCP IP, LLC v. .30-06 Outdoors

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

If damages are calculable or liquidated, then the court may forego an evidentiary hearing because the facts establishing damages are not distinct from the facts establishing liability. See United States v. … The opinion testimony of qualified experts. 15.

M&C Holdings Delaware Partnership v. Great American Insurance Company

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

Millennium’s complaint does not include the date that it discovered the loss, but the above-quoted Policy language establishes that Millennium’s discovery must have occurred between May 31, 2017 and May 31, 2018 to qualify … Co., 570 F.2d 658, 659 (6th Cir. 1978) (finding the argument that a policy’s statute of limitations begins to run from the cause of action’s accrual “clearly is not the law of Ohio”).

Shields v. Sinclair Media III Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 23, 2020

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified for the position … Further, defendant is clearly entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on this claim.

DeHart v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 3, 2023

combination, meet or equal a Listing in the Listing of Impairments; at Step 4, the Commissioner determines whether or not the claimant can still perform his or her past relevant work; and finally, at Step 5, if it is established … McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir.2007) (treatment note containing observations but no judgment about expected functioning did not qualify as “medical opinion” under the Social Security regulations); Allen

Schobert v. CSX Transportation Inc

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

(internal quotation marks omitted).7 The Court finds that CSXT was clearly put on notice of each allegedly “new” claim by Plaintiffs’ discovery motion … products sold or perfect attendance, and the employee has not met the goal due to FMLA leave, then the payment may be denied, unless otherwise paid to employees on an equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify

Amos v. PPG Industries Inc

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 16, 2019

Similarly, the fee and cost award is justified under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), as the Settlement Agreement clearly represents “some degree of success on the merits” within the meaning of Hardt. See Templin v. … That the proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” in the best interest of the General Class and Delaware Subclass, and qualifies for approval pursuant to Rule 23(e).

Henry v. Warden, London Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 2020

But the trial judge’s decision here to allow Henry to file a delayed motion for new trial was not embodied in a final judgment; it was clearly interlocutory. … established precedent of the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v.

Brenson

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 2026

Respondent argues that Brenson’s evidence does not qualify as “new” and does not meet the threshold for the actual innocence gateway. (Doc. 12 at PageID# 4267–4274). III. … Grey’s report does not qualify as “new evidence” for purposes of the actual innocence argument because it relies on evidence that was introduced at trial. (Doc. 12 at PageID # 4267–4271).

Clark v. Pizza Baker, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 23, 2019

Specifically, Plaintiffs have alleged that, in addition to being the President, founder, and owner of their respective pizza establishments, Defendants Burkett and Baker also had control over various operations of the business … , but allege[d] all [d]efendants engaged in the [] acts and violated the FLSA and Ohio wage laws by knowingly, willfully and/or recklessly failing to pay overtime and minimum wages to [p]laintiffs” those “[p]laintiffs clearly

Estes v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 24, 2023

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 … The determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual

Estes v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 25, 2023

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 … The determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual

Stephens v. ADS Alliance Data Systems, 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). … Accordingly, a class action is clearly the superior method of adjudicating this case.

Hawkins v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 4, 2019

established precedent of the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. … Therefore, the Second District’s decision on the jury view issue is not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent and is entitled to deference.