Joseph Peter Kinneary
Judge Kinneary no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“In conclusion, this Court GRANTS Chenoweth’s motion for partial summary judgment based upon Wal-Mart’s violation of COBRA.”
“Additionally, the Court DENIES Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment of the remaining causes of action under the FMLA and Ohio public policy.”
“Upon consideration and being duly advised, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to dismiss Defendant Sandi Bartley-Buzas’s Answer and GRANTS the Individual State Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
“The Court hereby DISMISSES Defendants Penny Purivanee, Ike Lively, Randy Headly, Joyce Mitchell, Sue Creagan, Joseph Harper, Sheilba Berger, Judy Jones and Randy Ferguson from this lawsuit.”
“Upon consideration and being duly advised, the Court GRANTS the motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) and GRANTS the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Sandra Bartley-Buzas.”
“The Court DISMISSES the remainder of Plaintiffs Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.”
“WHEREUPON, upon consideration and being duly advised, the Court finds the City of Coshocton’s motion to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint to be meritorious, and it is, therefore, GRANTED. All claims are dismissed with prejudice, with the exception of the contract claim, which is partially dismissed without prejudice.”
“Furthermore, the Court finds the United States’ motion to strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12, 13, 14, and 22 to be meritorious and it is, therefore, GRANTED. The motion to strike affirmative defenses 4, 5, 15, 17, and 18 is partially meritorious and it is, therefore, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“The motion to strike affirmative defenses 4, 5, 15, 17, and 18 is partially meritorious and it is, therefore, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion to strike affirmative defenses 7, 16, 19, 20, and 21 is DENIED.”
“Finally, the United States’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e) is GRANTED.”
“WHEREUPON, upon consideration and being duly advised, the Court finds the motion of the plaintiffs for summary judgment to be without merit, and it is, therefore, DENIED.”
“The Court further finds that the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs’ claim is meritorious, and it is, therefore, GRANTED.”
“The defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to their counterclaim seeking declaratory relief is without merit, and it is, therefore, DENIED.”
“The cross motions for attorneys’ fees are without merit, and they, too, are DENIED.”
“Upon consideration and being duly advised, the Court DENIES Defendants’ application for costs and for attorney’s fees.”
“Upon consideration and being duly advised, the Court DENIES the motion of Defendant, Bank One, N.A., for partial judgment on the pleadings.”
“Upon consideration and being duly advised, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ second motion to dismiss. In particular, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion with respect to Count I of the Amended Complaint and the Court DISMISSES that count WITHOUT PREJUDICE. With respect to Count II of the Amended Complaint, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.”
“Upon consideration and being duly advised, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment are, therefore, GRANTED.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES this case.”
“Upon consideration and being duly advised, the Court finds Defendant Holzer Clinic, Ltd.’s motion to have merit, and it is, therefore, GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claim under the federal ECOA is TERMINATED. Because the Court believes that an Ohio court should address the policies of Ohio’s Medicaid and consumer protection laws, the Court refuses to extend its supplemental jurisdiction and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claim under the Ohio CSPA WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Upon consideration and being duly advised, the Court REVERSES the bankruptcy court’s finding of adverse interest, AFFIRMS IN PART and REVERSES IN PART the bankruptcy court’s findings and rulings on SS & D’s failure to meet the statutory requirements for disclosure, and REMANDS for further proceedings consistent with this OPINION and ORDER.”
“Therefore the ‘Motion to Strike Charts Used at Oral Argument’ is MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The randomized sample of ten terminated historical cases is dominated by asbestos product-liability matters and also includes prisoner civil rights, constitutional, public-administration, and unclassified matters. It is descriptive rather than a career caseload estimate.
A historical record
Judge Kinneary no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.