Case law

In Re Lee Way Holding Co.

102 B.R. 616 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 1989

While this Court might have reached a different conclusion if it were considering the matter de novo, appellants have not established that the decision of the Bankruptcy Judge was clearly erroneous, and the Court is not “ … A review of the facts on the record in the case at bar does not establish that the Bankruptcy Judge’s finding was clearly erroneous. VII.

Ridenour v. Collins

692 F. Supp. 2d 827 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2010

Ridenour in support of his argument is that the defendants’ answer asserts a defense of qualified immunity “[t]o the extent Plaintiff intends to seek any monetary damages.” Mr. … Such a change would spawn further litigation involving questions such as the appropriate measure of damages and whether the defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Ohio State University v. Sullivan

777 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 13, 1991

Clearly, the answer to both of these questions is no. … Clearly, both direct and indirect costs of approved educational activities are reimbursable under § 413.85(g).

Brock v. Hamilton County JFS Children Services

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

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. … Defendants also asserted they are entitled to qualified immunity. That Court granted Defendants motion and dismissed the action on December 8, 2023. Id.

Glowka v. Marit

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

although they still may be entitled to qualified immunity. … While this immunity “leave[s] the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty,” “the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity

Swain v. Chambers-Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 19, 2023

“There are three exceptions to sovereign immunity: (1) when the state has waived immunity by consenting to the suit, (2) when Congress has expressly abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity, and (3) when the doctrine set … First, “Ohio has not waived sovereign immunity in federal court.” Mixon v. State of Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 397 (6th Cir. 1999). Second, “Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.”

In Re Search Warrants Issued August 29, 1994

889 F. Supp. 296 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 5, 1995

This ease presents the question of whether the documents which were relied upon to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant must be disclosed to the person whose residence was the subject of a search, … Clearly, the fact that there is an on-going criminal investigation could provide a compelling governmental interest. Cf. Baltimore Sun, 886 F.2d at 64 .

Hodgson v. Hamilton Municipal Court

349 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 31, 1972

A report of the House Banking and Currency Committee stated: “Evidence received by your committee clearly establishes the connection between the rocketing increases in i>ersonal bankruptcies and harsh garnishment laws. … Minish, one of the sponsors of the House bill, stated, “During hearings on H.R. 11601, the committee heard testimony accompanied by supporting evidence that clearly established a cause- and-effect relationship between harsh

Hicks v. Knost

94 F. 625 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 1, 1899

an exception repugnant to this general policy, it should clearly appear from the language of the law, without the aid of ingenious construction. … courts of bankruptcy are invested with jurisdiction to adjudge persons bankrupt; allow or disallow claims against bankrupts; appoint receivers or the marshals to take charge of the property of bankrupts until the trustee is qualified

Huisjack v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.

492 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2007

With respect to the second prong, the contract explicitly shows that Medco established the LTD plan for the purpose of providing disability benefits to a clearly defined group of employees. (Doc. #3, Ex. A.) … In other words, complete preemption is based on the proposition that if Congress clearly intended for a state cause of action *849 to be brought under federal law, then it should be.

Savage v. Gee

716 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 2010

evil,” and that he justifies this book on grounds that are ludicrous by scholarly standards, says to me this is about homophobia— that the hatred (“evil”) and irrationality (anti-scholarly defense) this term implies are clearly … The court thus need not address defendants’ alternative arguments regarding qualified immunity. 7 .

Faure v. The Ohio State University

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

Cox Is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly … Cox’s alleged racist practices was clearly established.

Schneble v. United States

614 F. Supp. 78 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 1985

The HPSP was established by Congress for the purpose of obtaining an adequate number of commissioned officers for active duty who .are qualified physicians or other health professionals. 10 U.S.C. § 2121 (a). … In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established any probability of success on the merits.

Ohio v. Cox

257 F. 334 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 4, 1919

each House” concurred in the proposed amendment was and is untrue and misleading, in that, when the Senate of the United States finally voted on the proposed amendment it was composed of ninety-five members elected and qualified … ‘•The suit must be such that some right, privilege, immunity, or title on which recovery depends will be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or laws, or sustained by a contrary construction.”

United States v. One Hundred Twenty-Eight Thousand Thirty-Five Dollars ($128,035.00) in U.S. Currency

628 F. Supp. 668 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 11, 1986

In the present case, the government has failed to establish the existence of any exigent circumstances which would justify the warrant-less seizure of the West Fifth Avenue real property. … The record before the Court clearly indicates that transactions involving cocaine were conducted at the West Fifth premises. See United States v. Jay T. Will, supra at pp. 5-8.

Downard v. Martin

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 6, 2020

Government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts which do not violate clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Anderson v. … Clearly Established Right A court must also determine that the detainee’s “right was clearly established such that a reasonable official, at the time the act was committed, would have understood that

Midwest Sports Medicine & Orthopedic Surgery, Inc. v. United States

73 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 9, 1999

In light of the fact that Congress amended § 6332 to include the phrase “any other person” in its grant of immunity, the Court concludes that § 6332(e) extends immunity to a person or entity who mistakenly surrenders the … It is well-established that the United States can be bound only by officials acting within the actual scope of their legal authority. Utah Power & Light v.

Jabbar v. United States Postal Service

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 10, 2021

. § 201, the USPS is ‘an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States[,]’ [and] [a]s such, ‘enjoys federal sovereign immunity absent a waiver.’” … While the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) permits waiver of this immunity to tort claims arising out of USPS activities, “it also qualifies 13 categories of claims for which the United States may never be sued.” Id.

Brown v. United States

345 F. Supp. 241 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 8, 1972

It has been observed that section 302(b) *247 (1) must be construed narrowly since “its major function was the narrow one of immunizing redemptions of minority holdings of preferred stock.” … Davis, supra, the cash received for such stock cannot qualify for capital gains treatment. To the extent that Himmel v.

Anderson v. Harrison

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 24, 2025

In Ex Parte Young, the United States Supreme Court established an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims for injunctive relief against individual state officials in their official capacities. 209 U.S. 123, … Additionally, “[i]n order to qualify under Ex parte Young, such an action must seek prospective relief to end a continuing violation of federal law.” Carten v.