Case law

Cook v. City of Cincinnati

103 Ohio App. 3d 80 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 31, 1995

This right is known in law as qualified immunity. Qualified immunity in this context is a question of federal law. State law immunity has no application to a 1983 claim. … The United States Supreme Court has stated that “unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Kremer v. Cox

114 Ohio App. 3d 41 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 1996

We further note that, since Cox’s statements were made in his capacity as coroner, they are protected by a qualified immunity codified in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). … QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE Cox asserts that the statements of which Kremer complains were made in Cox’s official capacity as coroner. Therefore, he claims, a “qualified privilege” attaches to them.

Bordelon v. Franklin Township, Unpublished Decision (12-13-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2001

of clearly established law and the information that he possessed. … defendant's conduct did indeed violate clearly established rights).

Youngstown v. Carrier Servs. Group, Inc.

2026 Ohio 1032 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2026

qualified immunity claim. … .): Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the

Jones v. Norwood

2013 Ohio 350 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2013

. {¶51} The doctrine of federal qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In the context of the qualified-immunity analysis, we affirmed the trial court’s determination that Jones had shown the violation of her clearly established procedural-due-process right to a predeprivation hearing.

Parmelee v. Schnader

2018 Ohio 707 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2018

Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). {¶22} A governmental official sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 may assert the defense of qualified immunity when their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff's burden to establish that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. citing Silberstein v.

Alley v. Bettencourt

134 Ohio App. 3d 303 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1999

The officers filed for summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of qualified immunity barred Alley’s federal claims, because Alley could not prove that they violated any clearly established statutory or constitutional … Alley responded to the officers’ motion for summary judgment, arguing that qualified immunity did not bar his federal claims, because the officers violated his clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment

Piphus v. Blum

108 Ohio App. 3d 218 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1995

would believe was lawful in light of “clearly established law” and “information possessed” at the time of the challenged conduct. … In the absence of that clearly established right, the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Moritz

39 Ohio App. 3d 132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1987

Appellants assert the following as their sole assignment of error: “The trial court erred in denying defendants-appellants’ good faith immunity defense where defendants-appellants violated no clearly established constitutional … Harlow holds that until the threshold question of immunity is resolved, whether the law or right which the official is alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of the appeal violation and whether a reasonable

Ludt v. Youngstown

2016 Ohio 8553 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2016

City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 302 (6th Cir.2005). {¶13} Once qualified immunity is raised, it is the plaintiff's burden of proof to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, we need not consider whether Williams is protected by qualified immunity.

Hicks v. Leffler

119 Ohio App. 3d 424 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1997

First, with regard to immunity for a federal claim, in order to defeat a defendant’s motion for summary judgment under a qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have … Taken together, Hunter and Harlow stand for the proposition that, where the law has been clearly established, a mistaken decision made in extraordinary circumstances may not lead to loss of immunity.

Jaeger v. Wracker

21 Ohio App. 3d 150 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1985

Fitzgerald (1982), 457 U.S. 800 , 818-819: “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … fireman, the trustees cannot claim a qualified immunity.

City of Akron v. Brown

122 N.E.3d 672 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2018

(Emphasis added.) {¶ 8} The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2925. … Brown had qualified for immunity and, consequently, dismissal of a charge for minor drug possession, any allied offenses would not "merge" for that purpose and there would be no grounds to extend immunity or dismiss any charges

Summerville v. City of Forest Park

195 Ohio App. 3d 13 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2011

Qualified Immunity {¶17} Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at … Moreover, she failed to demonstrate that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. {¶34} Therefore, we hold that Pape and Hall are entitled to qualified immunity on Summerville’s Section 1983 claims against them

Leibson v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

84 Ohio App. 3d 751 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

Qualified immunity shields government officials under the objective standard which tests whether their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Garvey v. Vermilion

2012 Ohio 1258 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2012

‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the  5 allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’” … be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”

Moore v. Hayman

67 Ohio App. 3d 184 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1990

principle purposes for the adoption of the qualified immunity standard as articulated in Harlow, supra. … Due to the fact that no clearly established constitutionalrightwas violated, therefore shielding the appellees with qualified immunity, appellants' issues two (2), three (3) and four (4) become irrelevant.

Pisoni v. McCord

2018 Ohio 64 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2018

Thereafter, the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish that the defendant’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in the defendant’s position would have clearly understood that he was under an … The question is whether Pisoni established McCord’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in McCord’s position (objectively measured) would have clearly understood he was under an affirmative

Patton v. Wood County Humane Society

154 Ohio App. 3d 670 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2003

immunity from suit in a Section 1983 action so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

Scott v. City of Columbus, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2001

of clearly established law and the information that he possessed. … defendant's conduct did indeed violate clearly established rights).