Case law

Smotherman v. Errett

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

Accordingly, in drafting a complaint, a plaintiff must: (1) clearly state the underlying claim; and (2) include supporting facts that describe “official acts frustrating the litigation” to show actual injury. … “[A]ninmate cannot establish relevantactual injury simply by establishing [their claim]in some theoretical sense.” Lewis,518 U.S.at 351.

Subler Transfer, Inc. v. United States

396 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 21, 1975

substantial evidence” are contained, for the purpose of the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity, in § 207(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act: 7 Subject to section 210, a certificate shall be issued to any qualified … This evidence, taken as a whole, clearly amounts to “substantial evidence.”

Holmes v. KE Gutridge, LLC

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

However, his texts do establish that Defendants knew that A.H. was being seen at a rheumatology clinic, that she was on medication that suppressed her immune system, and that Mr. … Mapes and the doctor’s notes he provided for A.H.’s appointments establish that Defendants knew that: (i) A.H. had multiple appointments at the rheumatology clinic; (ii) she was taking medication that lowered her immune

Hamadmad

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 2025

“A suit against OSU is the same as a suit against Ohio because OSU, like Ohio’s other public universities, qualifies as an arm of the state.” Id. (citing Johnson v. … Hamadmad does not dispute that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to Defendants, but argues that the Ex parte Young exception to such immunity allows her to bring her claims for prospective injunctive relief against

Deere v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone LLP

413 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 2006

JB & R also lists the fifteen FDCPA cases that Plaintiffs counsel have filed in this district over the past year and a half, *889 suggesting that the “sheer number” establishes counsel’s intent to harass JB & R. … In view of this conclusion, the Court need not address Defendants’ alternative arguments concerning res judi-cata, various forms of immunity, First Amendment protection, and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

Enoch v. Hamilton County Sheriff's Office

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 2022

immunity for alleged violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights (Doc. 66) and a 2019 appeal reversing the Court’s denial of qualified immunity, affirming other grounds, and remanding for further proceedings (Doc. … Even though the majority of defendants were ultimately granted qualified immunity in this case and the jury awarded compensatory damages in an amount less than that requested, Enoch prevailed on her central claim that

Peterson v. Johnson

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2023

And finally, Defendant argues qualified immunity bars Plaintiff’s suit against Johnson and McPheron in their individual capacities. (Id., at 8). … Qualified Immunity Defendant Johnson maintains Plaintiff’s action against Johnson and McPheron in their individual capacities must be dismissed because it is barred by qualified

Taper v. Branch

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 3, 2025

And Plaintiff continually asserts that his arrest and subsequent incarceration qualify as “kidnapping.” … 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.

Hannah v. Koman Holdings, LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 5, 2024

Deciding whether KOMAN qualifies as an “employer” is not a jurisdictional inquiry—rather, this highly fact-specific determination goes to the merits of Ms. … Towards that end, Congress and the Supreme Court have established exemptions and immunities to provide social and political space for Native American self-governance and self-determination.

Simpson v. Deters

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 15, 2024

Next, Plaintiff argues that Defendant is not immune from this suit. (Doc. 6, Page ID 62). … Plaintiff’s claim is clearly time barred. Plaintiff does not dispute this.

Deal v. Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter Co. LPA

551 F. Supp. 2d 694 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 29, 2008

Defendant contends that the Of-Counsel Plan qualifies as a top hat plan under ERISA. This Court disagrees. ERISA was established to protect workers and their families from losing anticipated benefits. Bakri v. … Here, Plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to vote, and therefore he clearly could not substantially influence the terms of the Plan that Defendant attempts to apply to him.

DeNoma v. Heekin

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2021

The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to the magistrate judge's factual findings and the “contrary to law” standard applies to the legal conclusions. Sheppard v. … “It is well established that judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from suits for money damages for all actions taken in the judge's judicial capacity, unless these actions are taken in the complete absence

Schoffner v. United States

627 F. Supp. 167 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 15, 1985

Plaintiffs tax returns clearly fall within the parameters of section 6702. The returns contain no information at all. Section 6702(a)(1)(A). … It is a matter of well-established law that a taxpayer may not avoid submitting any information on his income tax return by making spurious constitutional objections. United States v.

Doe v. Board of Education of Fairland Local School District

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 2025

Privity may thus be established by a “mutuality of interest, including an identity of desired result[.]” Id. (quoting Brown v. Dayton, 2000-Ohio-148, ¶ 4). … Here, there is no indication that the interests of Doe and his mother “were clearly different,” let alone that they diverged at all. Id.

Sarkadi v. Ohio Casino Control Commission

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2021

As a state agency, the OCCC enjoys Ohio’s sovereign immunity in federal court. … Merely pleading that Defendants were collectively “acting in concert” fails to establish a substantial tie between the Casino employees and state actors.

Morgan V. Equifax Information Services LLC

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2022

Where a statute is unclear, courts must “construe ambiguities in favor of immunity.” Id. The burden of establishing a waiver of sovereign immunity “rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” … The court reasoned that together, “these provisions speak clearly enough to waive federal sovereign immunity.” Mowrer, 14 F.4th at 729.

Payton v. Roe

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 16, 2025

App’x 1, 8 (6th Cir. 2007), but it does sometimes abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, United States v. … Compl. 7 16, ECF No. 9 (“The Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a recognized and recorded disability of heart disease (cardiovascular) with a defibrillator.”).

Crawford v. ITT Consumer Financial Corp.

653 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 14, 1986

Plaintiff will establish a prima facie case on showing that: 1) Plaintiff falls within the protected age group, i.e., between ages 40 and 70; 2) she was qualified for the position; 3) adverse employment actions were taken … The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.

Bethel v. Warden Ohio State Penitentiary

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 17, 2023

Lucas, 753 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2014), a civil rights case addressing qualified immunity, Petitioner argues that “clearly established law” limits Brady to a trial right only, he cannot obtain relief under the Antiterrorism … Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 621– 22 (6th Cir. 2014)(“In the § 1983 context, however, we have held that there is no ‘clearly established obligation [for state and federal law enforcement officers] to disclose exculpatory Brady

JUSTIN A. ALEXANDER v. KEITH ALAN EDWARDS, et al.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 2026

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. … P. 12(b)(6), move to dismiss all claims against them on grounds that they are entitled absolute and/or qualified immunity and that the claims are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine.