Case law

Elton v. Sparkes

2016 Ohio 1067 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2016

Neither side has contested that the Board qualifies as a political subdivision. Thus, because the trial court’s judgment denied the Board the benefit of R.C. … may be asserted to establish nonliability: *** The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury, death, or loss to person or property resulted from the exercise of judgment

Lehew v. Rhodes

23 Ohio App. 2d 102 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 1970

Could then the denial of a $5 per *112 month diet allowance to a person already qualified for aid be classified as “invidious”? … It is not completely established that receipt of welfare benefits constitutes a constitutional right. ( Rothstein, supra.)

Black v. Cleveland Police Department

96 Ohio App. 3d 84 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1994

Additionally, the individual police officers argued they were entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity from liability for defamation. … Instead, in a single “argument and law” section of his appellate brief, appellant argues that the defense of qualified immunity is available only where the defendants “don’t falsely or maliciously harm” another.

Thomas v. Lorain Metro Hous. Auth.

2018 Ohio 2997 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2018

Summit No. 25219, 2011-Ohio-2382, ¶ 7-8. {¶13} Determining whether a political subdivision qualifies for immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744 et seq. involves a three-tiered analysis. Lambert v. … When it has been determined that a party generally qualifies for immunity due to its status as a political subdivision, the second tier of the analysis is to determine whether one of the exceptions to immunity set forth

Maynard v. H.A.M. Landscaping, Inc.

166 Ohio App. 3d 76 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2006

C. 4123.74 qualifies the immunity that the complying employer is entitled to: the immunity extends to injuries “received or contracted by any employee in the course of or arising out of his employment.” {¶ 42} In support … Bridges, however, qualified that the defendant was a “complying employer entitled to the immunity provided in R.C. ¿.123.74..” (Emphasis added.)

Murdock v. Village of Ottawa Hills

134 Ohio App. 3d 470 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1999

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination in hiring under Title VII, a complainant must show: “(i) that he belongs to a [protected class]; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the … Being the son of a former union organizer is clearly not a protected class pursuant to R.C. 4112.02.

State v. Hagen

2018 Ohio 4045 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 2018

His attorney then filed a combined demand for immunity and motion to suppress evidence, arguing in part that because Hagen “overdosed on the evening of February 26, 2017,” he was a “Qualified Individual” under R.C. 2925.11 … -11- (Emphasis added.) {¶ 25} Without dispute, Hagen satisfies some of the criteria necessary to qualify for immunity

State v. Craciun

2018 Ohio 5185 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2018

Craciun, on the basis of qualified statutory immunity. … Here, the trial court, in applying the qualified immunity test, did not require satisfaction of all prongs.

Fullum v. Columbiana Cty. Coroner

2014 Ohio 5512 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2014

(Emphasis sic.) {¶16} Fullum argues that this is error for several reasons, the first being that the Amended Complaint clearly defines "Columbiana County Coroner" as the political subdivision and Appellees admit this … [W]hen an employee of a political subdivision brings a civil action against the political subdivision alleging an intentional tort, that civil action may qualify as a "matter that arises out of the employment

Wooton v. Vogele

147 Ohio App. 3d 216 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2001

reasons were assigned as a basis thereof.” 9 Because Wooton failed to establish below that Vogele’s conduct was malicious, in bad faith, or wanton or reckless, Vogele was entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). {¶ … Thus, an employee of a political subdivision is presumed immune unless one of these exceptions to immunity is established. 13 {¶ 18} Vogele moved for summary judgment on the basis of individual immunity from liability.

Clements v. Brimfield Twp. Police Dept.

92 N.E.3d 37 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2017

, qualified immunity, and Clements’ lack of standing to file suit for wrongful eviction. … However, the Brimfield Police clearly sought summary judgment on all of Clements’ claims on sovereign immunity grounds, and Clements did not raise any exceptions to R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) to preclude immunity on this claim

Huffman v. City of Willoughby, 2007-L-040 (12-28-2007)

2007 Ohio 7120 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2007

Rafting on the river clearly qualifies under this standard. {¶ 69} Furthermore, as stated by the Ohio Supreme Court, "[t]he existence of statutory immunity does not depend upon the specific activity pursued by the plaintiff … For example, we recognize immunity to the owner of a park (which qualifies as recreational premises), whether the injury is to one who is jogging in the park, tinkering with a model airplane or reading poetry to satisfy a

Upjohn Co. v. Ohio Department of Human Services

77 Ohio App. 3d 827 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1991

The Medicaid program established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, Section 301, Title 42, U.S.Code, provides federal funds to reimburse states for medical assistance furnished to qualifying individuals based on … Under Ohio Adm.Code 5101:3-9-02, ODHS established the Ohio Medicaid Drug Formulary, which lists drugs that qualify for automatic reimbursement.

Stone v. Northmont City Schools

187 N.E.3d 54 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2022

and established that employee negligence caused Bruce’s injuries, the Stones could not also establish that the physical defect exception applies here, and political subdivision immunity should apply. … “To qualify for recreational-user immunity, property need not be completely natural, but its essential character should fit within the intent of the statute.” Id.

Smith v. Ohio State University Hospitals

110 Ohio App. 3d 412 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1996

Clearly, University Hospitals entered into a contractual obligation with the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“DRC”) to provide medical services to the inmates at the Orient Correctional Institution. … Clearly a surgeon’s skills, knowledge, experience and expertise are unique and cannot be duplicated by others not similarly qualified.

Thorne v. Toledo

256 N.E.3d 907 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2024

Qualified immunity protects state officials against liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 19. … He states that “[r]etaliation by a government official against a person for exercising their right to freedom of speech – even if the speech is critical of the government official or government policy – is a clearly established

Stoll v. Gardner

182 Ohio App. 3d 214 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2009

We address the issues of governmental and qualified immunity separately- Stone and Alexander — Governmental Immunity {¶ 13} R.C. 2744 et seq. provides governmental immunity to political subdivisions and their employees. … Gardner — Qualified Immunity {¶ 37} Private citizens are afforded qualified immunity when they provide governmental authorities with information to assist in the prevention or detection of a crime. Leitner v.

Edwards v. Buckley

106 Ohio App. 3d 800 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1995

The appellant also asserts that the appellee was not protected by qualified immunity and that there is no inherent conflict between employment in the University Office of Legal Counsel and accepting assignments as a reporter … The Supreme Court expounded on the concept of qualified immunity in Anderson v. Creighton (1987), 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 .

Franks v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

195 Ohio App. 3d 114 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 2011

against her does not qualify as a ‘medical claim’ under that section”); see also Evans v. … ODRC argues that it is entitled to judgment on the basis of discretionary immunity.

Founders Ins.Co. v. Gurung

2017 Ohio 8983 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2017

“We look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in the policy unless another meaning is clearly apparent from the contents of the policy.” Galatis at ¶ 11. … The plain and ordinary meaning of “privilege,” however, is “a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor * * *.”