Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,956 results
3.65s
395 F. Supp. 836 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 16, 1975
The City of Columbus enjoys sovereign immunity, and thus a § 1983 claim against it would be improper. The Court has rejected similar reasoning before, and rejects it now. Lopez v. … The Court determines that in a slightly altered factual context, plaintiffs could clearly proceed on their § 2000e et seq. claim.
Cited 16 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 27, 2025
“An action has no arguable legal basis when the . . . plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. … (Compl. at PageID 8–9, 11.) 42 U.S.C. § 12112 provides that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement
Cited 0 timesUnknownWashburn v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America
43 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 9, 1998
UNUM argues that the Continuity of Coverage clause establishes coverage “based on the terms of the Provident Policy.” … to qualify as an active full-time employee.
Cited 0 timesPublished302 F.R.D. 480 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2014
Defendants cite to Plaintiffs Exhibit 1, which, they argue, “clearly show[s] that there was no common policies,” as each restaurant “stood on its own with respect to its policies and procedures and such policies and procedures … Plaintiff has further shown that her case qualifies for class action status under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).
Cited 41 timesPublishedButler v. City of Cincinnati Ohio
District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 2020
Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, as he cannot establish violations of his … Dist., 428 F.3d 223, 235 (6th Cir. 2005) (Sutton, J., concurring) (explaining that the fact-intensive nature of the qualified immunity test make it “difficult for a defendant to claim qualified immunity on the pleadings
Cited 0 timesUnknown747 F. Supp. 1556 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 3, 1990
Therefore, the Zipperstein immunity rule would apply to the claims asserted on behalf of plaintiffs and the Family Trust. … Defendants also invoke the Zipper-stein rule immunity in respect to the other non-fraud claims asserted by plaintiffs.
Cited 18 timesPublishedMcConnaughy v. Belmont County Courthouse
District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 2021
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. … However, any such claim against the Belmont County Courthouse fails because county “courts in Ohio qualify as arms of the state, and therefore ‘are immune from suits brought by citizens of Ohio.’” Phillips v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 23, 2021
Plaintiff’s allegations establish that he was seen by at least three doctors at LCI and was treated with eye drops. See Palacio v. Hofbauer, 106 F. … Similarly, § 504 of the RA provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . .
Cited 0 timesUnknownIn re E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. C-8 Personal Injury Litig.
345 F. Supp. 3d 897 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 6, 2015
Subject Matter DuPont claims that, unlike its expert witness' testimony, the Trial Plaintiffs' "experts' reports and testimony clearly show they have not been designated merely to talk about the 'state of knowledge/state … He is qualified to opine on the standards of care applicable to these fields.
Cited 12 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 2024
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. … A plaintiff can overcome the application of judicial immunity only where: 1) the judge’s acts were clearly non- judicial in nature and therefore outside the scope of the judge’s judicial capacity; or 2) the judge’s actions
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States v. Universal Milk Bottle Service, Inc.
85 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 30, 1949
Under this “doctrine” also, therefore, the indictment is immune as against defendants’ motions to dismiss. (c) Other Grounds Asserted by Defendants in Support of Their Motions to Dismiss. … Nothing in the order or the Act upon which the order is based authorizes or grants immunity from the Sherman Act for a conspiracy to fix prices of fluid, milk sold at retail and wholesale in the-Cincinnati area.
Cited 12 timesPublished680 F. Supp. 1101 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 1987
The Court concludes that the Defendants’ argument is contrary to established case law. … These are clearly federal interests. See Association for Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v.
Cited 6 timesPublished772 F. Supp. 984 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 13, 1991
James must establish a prima facie case that he was denied promotion for an impermissible reason. … According to the survey, Laufman qualifies as a “senior partner” and Gerhardstein qualifies as an “intermediate partner.” The 1983 rate for senior partners was $128.34 and $113.43 for intermediate partners.
Cited 12 timesPublishedUnited States Medical Corp. v. M.D. Buyline, Inc.
753 F. Supp. 676 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 6, 1990
In addition, plaintiff is not precluded from establishing that the statements made were provable as false. … Conditional/Qualified Privilege Defendant claims that its statements are not actionable because they are subject to a qualified or conditional privilege.
Cited 4 timesPublishedSchafer Oil Co., Inc. v. Anna Petroleum, LLC
767 F. Supp. 2d 856 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 8, 2010
“Federal jurisdiction should be exercised only when it is clearly established, and any ambiguity regarding the scope of § 1446(b) should be resolved in favor of remand to the state courts.” Brierly v. … Conclusion Because the instant case qualifies for remand, and because the statutorily mandated factors to be considered weigh in favor of remand, Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, doc. 7, is GRANTED.
Cited 2 timesPublishedTri County Wholesale Distributors, Inc. v. Labatt USA Operating Co.
66 F. Supp. 3d 974 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2014
If notice is not received within this ninety-day period, a franchise relationship is established between the parties. … Plaintiffs cite this authority for the proposition that an entity cannot qualify as a “successor manufacturer” where prior written distribution agreements remain in place after a qualifying transaction under § 1333.85(D).
Cited 2 timesPublished537 F. Supp. 281 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 5, 1982
Fourth Cause of Action, as it is currently constituted, do not establish the presence of a federally protected property right, the Court concludes that the Fourth Cause of Action must be conditionally dismissed for failure … Therein, the Court said: We agree with those courts that have restricted the right of privacy to its boundaries as established in Paul v. Davis, supra, and Roe v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 16, 2024
An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit or when the plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … A plaintiff can overcome the application of judicial immunity only where: 1) the judge’s acts were clearly non-judicial in nature and therefore outside the scope of the judge’s judicial capacity; or 2) the judge’s actions
Cited 0 timesUnknownSmith v. Columbia Gas of Ohio Group Medical Benefit Plan
624 F. Supp. 2d 844 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 4, 2009
With respect to plan administration, the Pension Plan establishes a Retirement Board, which “shall be the named fiduciary and Plan administrator.” (Pension Plan at Section 12.1). … Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have clearly violated 29 U.S.C. § 1133 . Defendants next argue that “[e]ven if ...
Cited 1 timesPublishedDonaldson v. City of Dayton Ohio Police Department
District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 13, 2023
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. … (pattern) of abuse and was clearly on notice that it existed).
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna