Case law

Center v. City of West Carrollton

227 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 27, 2002

Center alleges that she asked the police department to provide her with a qualified interpreter for the deaf or hearing impaired, but that it failed to do so. … He states that he could clearly understand Plaintiffs concerns and that he was able to investigate the scene fully, based on their written conversation (id. ¶ 6).

Terry v. Ms. Lt. Crawford

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

Qualified Immunity Individual state actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to § 1983 claims unless the allegations … Here, because Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims fail on the merits, Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity regarding those claims. IV.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Crawford

934 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2013

The cover letter enclosing Defendants’ TPP states 'that homeowners “may qualify” for HAMP, cautions that they “may not qualify for this loan modification program,” invites homeowners to “see if [they] qualify,” mentions the … ] qualify under [HAMP] and comply with the terms of the [TPP].”

Cloke v. West Clermont Local School District Board of Education

409 F. Supp. 2d 927 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 2006

Clearly, Plaintiffs paranoid schizophrenia constitutes a mental impairment. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 . … In such a ease Dyer would have clearly known who Plaintiff was and that he desired such a position.

Terlecky v. Hurd (In Re Dublin Securities, Inc.)

197 B.R. 66 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 28, 1996

The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden “ ‘clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute.’” Id. … Although under Scholler attorneys are generally immune from malpractice suits brought by third parties, it does not follow that the immunity shields attorneys from direct actions for fraud.

CONTAINER SERVICE COMPANY v. United States

345 F. Supp. 235 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 3, 1972

Upon audit, the Internal Revenue Service determined that the plaintiff’s profit-sharing plan did not qualify under Section 401 and the trust did not qualify under Section 501 and therefore disallowed deductions for contributions … Judged by any reasonable objective criteria the plaintiff’s plan in operation clearly discriminates in favor of the prohibited group.

Hobart Corp. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

603 F. Supp. 1431 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 22, 1984

Item # 1, in contrast, clearly does not relate in any manner whatsoever to informal conciliation. … As a part of a manual designed for training purposes only, Session III is clearly a manual of predominate internality.

Stanford v. Northmont City Schools

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 14, 2021

Among multiple other arguments, they suggest, in a cursory manner, that qualified immunity protects Defendant Kaltenbach from any federal claims brought against him in his individual capacity. … This is true even where, as here, Defendants raise the possibility of a qualified immunity defense. Cf. Wesley v.

Brown v. Chambers-Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 2023

The reasons requiring this degree of specificity is the state actors sued in their individual capacities may be entitled to qualified immunity from liability if their acts did not violate clearly established applicable … For example, the right to be free from excessively forceful handcuffing is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937 (6th Cir. 2002), citing Kostrzewa v.

Stanford v. Northmont City Schools

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 8, 2023

“[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Johnston v. Hamilton County Justice Center

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2022

Evers is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct “violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position would have known.” Brown v. … The October 16, 2020, R&R and the Supplemental R&R both conclude that Evers is entitled to qualified immunity. (Docs. 64, 80).

Union Mechling Corp. v. United States

579 F. Supp. 1273 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 5, 1984

The decision is not one which is clearly “of ‘the nature and quality’ which Congress intended to put beyond judicial review.” Downs, 522 F.2d at 997 . Moreover, because it was, as Mr. … We hold that, for purposes of resolving the instant motion, the decision to cripple the submergible feature of the gates was not clearly discretionary. C.

In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation

906 F. Supp. 2d 759 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 2012

Similarly, all of the resulting documentation included notations clearly reflecting that they were a part of “training.” (Wiles Hr’g Defs.’ Ex. 16, at 302-04.) … A Drug Administrator may also establish or assist in establishing IV connections.”

Planet Earth Entertainment, Inc. v. Edwards

84 F. Supp. 2d 891 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 16, 1999

Diamonds cites no authority, however, establishing that due process requires anything more. … suit under the Eleventh Amendment; and (4) that individual LCC members are immune from liability for money damages.

Anderson v. COUNTY OF HAMILTON

780 F. Supp. 2d 635 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 2011

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(c), “ ‘all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly … (“plaintiff must allege and prove both a conspiracy and an actual deprivation of rights; mere proof of conspiracy is insufficient to establish a section 1983 claim”).

In Re Ohio River Disaster Litigation

579 F. Supp. 1273 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 5, 1984

The decision is not one which is clearly "of `the nature and quality' which Congress intended to put beyond judicial review." Downs, 522 F.2d at 997 . Moreover, because it was, as Mr. … We hold that, for purposes of resolving the instant motion, the decision to cripple the submergible feature of the gates was not clearly discretionary. C.

Mumaw v. Dollar General Corp.

19 F. Supp. 2d 786 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 5, 1998

As detailed above, a prima facie case of sex discrimination may be established by showing that a plaintiff was a member of a protected class, she was terminated, she was qualified for her position, and she was replaced by … While there exists evidence to show that Plaintiff was not qualified for this position, this Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff was not qualified as a matter of law.

Shell v. R.W. Sturge Ltd.

850 F. Supp. 620 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 22, 1993

Second, the nature of the transactions clearly show they are international. See supra, pp. 626-27. … The Lloyd’s Act of 1982 grants no immunity to Lloyd’s for acts done in bad faith.

NG through guardian VG v. Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 9, 2025

. §§ 121.02(L), 5123.03(A)(1), are arms of the state which are entitled to sovereign immunity. The Court agrees, and plaintiff does not dispute this well-established proposition. … “[T]he Eleventh Amendment provides immunity to a state and its agencies from suit in federal court unless the state expressly waives immunity or Congress clearly abrogates the Eleventh Amendment in legislation designed

Bonds v. Berne Union Local Schools

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 16, 2023

She argues that she should be afforded the opportunity to advance defenses of statutory immunity pursuant to qualified immunity as a government official and O.R.C. … It is well established that public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages, to “shield them from undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of liability.”