Case law

Bishop v. Oakstone Academy

477 F. Supp. 2d 876 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 5, 2007

Defendants Oakstone Academy (“Oakstone”), the Ohio State University Children’s Center for Developmental Enrichment (“CODE”), CODE Therapies, Rebecca Morrison (“Morrison”), Galen Stover, Douglas Brown, Elliot Brody, Esther … Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education, 392 F.3d 840, 853 (6th Cir.2004) (“School districts receiving funds under the IDEA are required to establish an IEP for each child with a disability.” (citations omitted)).

Wade v. Bethesda Hospital

356 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 1973

Lockhart v. Hoenstine, supra at 460; Ginsburg v. Stern, 125 F.Supp. 596 (W.D.Pa.1954), aff’d 225 F.2d 245 (3d Cir. 1955); see also Dunn v. … As such, the Board is an agent cf. the county and is, therefore, as an entity, immune from suit under § 1983 because the suit in actuality would be against the county. Monroe v.

Orr v. Trinter

318 F. Supp. 1041 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 3, 1970

The Court in Roth v. Board of Regents, supra at 976-982 and Gouge v. … Roth v. Board of Regents, supra; Gouge v. Joint School District No. 1; see Parducci v. Rutland, 316 F.Supp. 352 , M.D.Ala., 1970.

Cranel Inc. v. Pro Image Consultants Group, LLC

57 F. Supp. 3d 838 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2014

, Fetter, and Brown. … Arnold v. Alphatec Spine, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-714, 2014 WL 2896838 , at *11 (S.D.Ohio June 26, 2014) (citing Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co., 546 F.3d 347 , 365 n. 4 (6th Cir.2008)).

Abdool-Rashaad v. Seiter

690 F. Supp. 598 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 8, 1987

Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , 64 S.Ct. 438 , 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944) (child labor laws); Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 , 81 S.Ct. 1144 , 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961) (Sunday closing laws); United States v. … In balancing the religious beliefs and practices of prisoners and their keepers, the Sixth Circuit stated in Brown v. Johnson, 743 F.2d 408 (6th Cir.1984): In considering these claims our starting point must be Bell v.

United States v. Tragash

691 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 16, 1988

In Delaware v. … Delaware v. Prouse, supra; Terry v. Ohio, supra; United States v. Tolbert, supra. Courts must apply objective standards in determining whether at the time of the stop the requisite degree of suspicion existed. Brown v.

In Re Aircraft Crash Litigation Frederick, Maryland, May 6, 1981

752 F. Supp. 1326 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 1990

Brown Affidavit. … Brown Affidavit). Hale Affidavit ¶¶ 16, 19, 28, 30; C. Brown Affidavit H 10.

Smith v. Jordan

527 F. Supp. 167 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 12, 1981

Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 484 , 100 S.Ct. 1790, 1795 , 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980). See, e. g., Robertson v. … See, e. g., Doe v. RenFrow, 475 F.Supp. 1012, 1024 (N.D.Ind.1979), aff’d in part, remanded in part on other grounds, 631 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1980) (per curiam); Bilbrey v. Brown, 481 F.Supp. 26, 27 (D.Or.1979).

T&R Properties, Inc v. Berlin Township

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2025

Plaintiffs deposed all members of the Berlin Township Board of Trustees and the Berlin Township Board of Zoning Appeals. (Doc. 55 at 3). … Plaintiffs state they plan to use their remaining depositions to depose Jerry Valentine and Angela Brown. (Doc. 58 at 2 (labeling Valentine and Brown as deponents nine and ten)).

Doe 4 v. Gallia County Local School District Board of Education

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

John Doe 2, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:23-cv-3927 V. Judge Michael H. … Cox v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., No. 14-cv- 13556, 2015 WL 13065092, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2015) (citing Cantrell v.

United States ex rel. Burch v. Piqua Engineering, Inc.

152 F.R.D. 565 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 2, 1993

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 28(a); see also Ikerd v. Lapworth, 435 F.2d 197 , 206-07 & n. 4 (7th Cir.1970); Baker v. … LEXIS 20374, at *6; Sanford v. CBS, Inc., 594 F.Supp. 713, 714-15 (N.D.Ill.1984); Lugtig v. Thomas, 89 F.R.D. 639, 641 (N.D.Ill.1981).

Williams v. Emco Maier Corp.

212 F. Supp. 2d 780 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 12, 2002

See Hoffman v. … See Wohler v.

Cooey v. Taft

430 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 28, 2006

Less than two months later, in Brown, v. … This Court can not and will not turn a blind eye to the evidence presented in the cases of Brown v. Beck in North Carolina and Morales v. Hickman in California appearing to contradict the opinion of Dr.

Berning v. BBC, INC.

575 F. Supp. 1354 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 10, 1983

Bank of New Jersey, 504 F.Supp. 1199 (D.N.J.1981); Dayton Casting Co. v. Full Mold Process, Inc., 404 F.Supp. 670, 673 (S.D.Ohio, 1975); Damon Coats, Inc. v. Munsingwear, 431 F.Supp. 1303 (E.D.Pa.1977); Brown v. … As in Brown *1359 v.

Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education

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

Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, it held that the interpretation of the word “sex” set forth in Bostock does not apply to Title IX. … Brown, 347 U.S. at 494; 22 Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 675 (2015); cf. Charles R.

Thornton v. City of Columbus

171 F. Supp. 3d 702 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 17, 2016

Beamer v. Board of Crawford Township Trustees, 2010 WL 319940 , 2010 U.S. Dist. … In Brown v.

Stone v. Holzberger

807 F. Supp. 1325 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 3, 1992

Browning v. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989 (6th Cir.1989). Therefore, a two year statute of limitations applies to the § 1983 claims in the case at bar. The events Ms. Stone complains of occurred in November, 1989. … Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291 , 18 O.O.3d 472 , 414 N.E.2d 1044 (1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 822 , 102 S.Ct. 107 , 70 L.Ed.2d 94 (1981); State v. Brown, 20 Ohio App.3d 36 , 20 OBR 38, 484 N.E.2d 215 (Hamilton Cty.1984).

United States v. Longworth

269 F. Supp. 971 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 1967

Berman v. Craig, 207 F.2d 888 , (3rd, 1953); United States v. Ransom, 223 F.2d 15 , (7th, 1955) ; Stain v. United States, 235 F.2d 339 , (9th, 1956) ; United States v. … “It is universally held that the Appeal Board considers matters of classification de novo and its classification is one of first instance, not a mere affirmance or reversal of the Local Board”. De Remer v.

Brown

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 2026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION James V. … Brown, Plaintiff, v.

Range v. Douglas

878 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 13, 2012

Board of County Comm’rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 397 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997). A showing of simple or even heightened negligence will not suffice. Stemler v. … The "plainly obvious” language was discussed by the Supreme Court in Board of Cnty. Com’rs of Bryan Cnty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 407 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997).