District Court, S.D. Ohio — appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson
Coe v. Ziegler
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1987-03-17 · cited 1×
The case was a class-action constitutional challenge brought by parents under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Ohio Child Removal Statute (Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.33) and related practices of the Hamilton County Department of Human Services and juvenile court, alleging inadequate notice and hearing procedures before children were removed from parental custody. The district court bifurcated the claims, tried the request for injunctive and declaratory relief, made detailed findings about specific investigations and removals, and ruled on the pending motion to dismiss the equitable claims. The court outlined a series of required procedural steps—including ex parte hearings before a judge or referee when immediate risk exists, a 72-hour hearing to review continued shelter care, and an adjudicatory hearing within ten days—while specifying that such hearings would be informal, without strict evidence rules, but would allow cross-examination and presentation of witnesses. The core reasoning focused on ensuring that emergency removals occur only upon a showing of imminent physical or emotional harm and that parents receive prompt opportunities to contest the removal while preserving the state's ability to protect children.
civil rightsfamily lawprocedure
Board of Education of City School District of Cincinnati v. Department of Health, Education & Welfare
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1987-02-17 · cited 2×
This case involved the Cincinnati Board of Education's challenge to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's denial of funding under the Emergency School Aid Act for the 1974 and 1976 grant cycles, based on HEW's determinations that the district was ineligible due to issues including the rescission of a desegregation plan and related constitutional concerns. After remand from the Sixth Circuit for an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact, and following resolution of the related Bronson v. Board of Education litigation, the court reviewed the supplemented administrative record and conducted further proceedings. The court decided that HEW's ineligibility findings were improper and that the Board was entitled to the escrowed funds, reasoning that HEW had conducted no independent fact-finding on key issues like the existence of a constitutional violation, relied on an inadequate administrative record, and treated factual and legal questions without sufficient separation or evidence.
civil rightsfederal power
R. Renaissance, Inc. v. Rohm and Haas Co.
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1987-01-26 · cited 11×
The case concerns a motion for summary judgment in a suit by R. Renaissance, Inc. (formerly Formco) against Rohm and Haas, where the defendant argued that Renaissance lacked standing because it had transferred its cause of action to Celotex through an asset sale contract or under a de facto merger theory. The court rejected the de facto merger argument, finding it inapplicable to a situation where the seller retained specific intangible assets like claims, and held that the contract documents did not convey the claim because they lacked specific language transferring rights of action. The court also excluded the plaintiff's expert report on damages due to numerous unsupported assumptions about market conditions and production. It denied the motion for summary judgment except on the expert issue and ordered a separate trial on whether ownership of the claims had been transferred.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Stoller v. Baldwin-United Corp.
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1986-09-16 · cited 7×
This case concerns two consolidated class action lawsuits filed by purchasers of Baldwin-United Corporation common or preferred stock and various debentures against the company and related defendants. The court reconfirmed class certification in the Stoller action for open-market buyers between December 14, 1981, and March 29, 1983, and certified a settlement-only class in the Bedel action for those acquiring DHB debentures pursuant to a registration statement or prospectus prior to April 19, 1983. It preliminarily approved stipulated settlements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), ordered settling defendants to deposit $9,775,000 into a settlement fund escrow and $300,000 into an administration fund escrow, and set a fairness hearing for December 22, 1986, to evaluate whether the settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate and to address attorneys' fees applications.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Bell v. Busse
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1986-04-24
In this case, a Black plaintiff sued a landlord under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 (and initially the Fair Housing Act) alleging refusal to rent based on race. The court had previously granted summary judgment on liability due to the defendant's litigation defaults, but the defendant's guardian ad litem later moved to vacate that judgment, arguing that the defendant lacked capacity to form discriminatory intent because of insanity. The Fair Housing Act claim was vacated because the property fell within a statutory exemption for small rentals. On the §§ 1981 and 1982 claims, the court held that insanity is not a defense, reasoning that these civil rights statutes create duties analogous to torts but without importing common-law insanity defenses that would undermine their purpose. The motion to vacate was therefore denied, with trial on damages to proceed.
civil rightspropertyproceduretorts & liability
Shapiro v. Merrill Lynch & Co.
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1986-02-25 · cited 18×
This case is a class action by purchasers of Baldwin-United Corporation securities against Merrill Lynch alleging violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 through deceptive practices, false statements, and omissions about Baldwin-United's financial condition that affected market prices. The court addressed Merrill Lynch's motions to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York, to compel arbitration, and to dismiss the complaint. The court denied the transfer motion after weighing factors including plaintiff's choice of forum, convenience of witnesses and documents, and pendency of related actions; it also denied the arbitration and dismissal motions after concluding that the fraud-on-the-market theory could apply to support the claims for this limited class of plaintiffs who purchased through Merrill Lynch.
business & regulatoryprocedure