Case law

Zieber v. Heffelfinger, 08ca0042 (3-17-2009)

2009 Ohio 1227 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2009

It is a qualified immunity, in the sense that it will attach so long as one of the exceptions does not *Page 13 apply. Lutz , supra. … City of Cleveland (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 196 , 197 , 283 N.E.2d 175 . {¶ 56} We find Appellant has presented evidence tending to show a material issue of fact as to an exception to qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.03 (A)

McDougald v. ODRC

2018 Ohio 2315 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2018

The trial court erred by converting plaintiff[']s claims into constitutional claims when he clearly stated a state tort claim for invasion of privacy claim. [II.] … Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 317 (3d Cir.2001) (finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity, and noting that an inmate's right to privacy of medical information "is subject to substantial restrictions and limitations in order

Widen v. County of Pike

187 Ohio App. 3d 510 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 10, 2010

. {¶ 13} Once immunity is generally established, “the second tier of analysis is whether any of the five exceptions to immunity in subsection (B) apply.” Hortman, id. at ¶ 12. … As such, Mould’s Trailblazer qualifies as an obstruction under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3). 2. Failure to Remove an Obstruction {¶ 20} We have found that Mould’s Trailblazer qualifies as an obstruction.

Pauley v. Circleville

2012 Ohio 2378 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 23, 2012

Cincinnati, 103 Ohio App.3d 80, 85, 658 N.E.2d 814 (1995) (stating that whether qualified immunity applies is a question of law). … The court stated: “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. at 114.

State Ex Rel. Shelton v. Firemen & Policemen's Death Benefit Fund

125 Ohio App. 3d 559 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 1997

We then turn to the question of whether the Fund officials, in their individual capacity, have qualified immunity to suit under Section 1983. a. The Fund. … We find that the trial court erroneously held that the Fund officials were entitled to qualified immunity.

Willey v. Springfield Twp.

2026 Ohio 1842 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 20, 2026

R.C. 2744.01(C)(2). {¶72} “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 … In response, Willey asserted the Springfield Township employees were not entitled to qualified immunity because (1) there was no probable cause to justify Willey’s arrest and prosecution, and (2) officers denied Willey

Bennett v. Columbiana Cty. Coroner

2016 Ohio 7182 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2016

Clearly, this record does not support Appellant’s contentions that she be regarded as a whistleblower. … Graham in his individual capacity, we must analyze whether immunity applies pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). Subsection (C) clearly does not apply. We must look to whether Dr.

Piro v. Franklin Township

102 Ohio App. 3d 130 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 24, 1995

Piro has not established by clear and convincing evidence his character and fitness for admission to the practice of law.” … Because Piro’s claim is precluded by immunity, we need not discuss whether his allegations establish a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. C.

Volny v. Portage Cty.

184 N.E.3d 925 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2022

Chapter 2744 establishes a three-tier analysis to determine whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. … {¶56} To establish negligence, a plaintiff must establish a duty, a breach of that duty, proximate cause, and damages.

Pakeer v. Cleveland

2023 Ohio 4213 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2023

The City is generally immune from liability based on the allegations advanced. … In other words, according to the panel, EMS providers responding to and then completing that call for emergency medical care or treatment qualify for the additional defense to immunity established under R.C. 2744.02(B)(

Tyler v. W. Brown Local School

2018 Ohio 3624 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2018

If immunity applies under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), then the second tier of the analysis carves out exceptions which re- establish the liability of a political subdivision. R.C. 2744.02(B). … Western Brown, as a public school district, qualifies as a political subdivision engaged in governmental or proprietary functions, and it and its employees are generally immune from civil liability.

Goldfarb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Pub. Works

2025 Ohio 3283 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 2025

There is no dispute that the County qualifies as a political subdivision. There is, however, a dispute as to whether the County was engaged in a governmental or proprietary function. … Because Goldfarb cannot establish a negligence claim, none of the exceptions to immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B) apply and the court should have determined that the County was entitled to political-subdivision immunity.

McKinney v. Hartley, 2007ca-00072 (1-20-2009)

2009 Ohio 274 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2009

available at common law or established by the Revised Code." {¶ 10} As to appellee Landefeld, R.C. 2744.03 (A)(7) clearly applies, due to his status as the county prosecuting attorney. … However, absolute immunity does not extend to a prosecutor engaged in essentially investigative or administrative functions. Willitzer . For these functions, the prosecutor has qualified immunity. Id.

Johnson v. Baldrick, Ca2007-01-013 (4-14-2008)

2008 Ohio 1794 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2008

Appellees and the trial court conflate the distinct concepts of duty and immunity. Immunity does not extinguish a duty. Immunity serves to remove liability if the duty is violated. … faith can show that the official acted in willful, reckless or wanton disregard of rights established under law."

State v. Jones

2023 Ohio 4829 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2023

Even if the record established that Mr. Jones could be considered a “qualifying adult[,]” the record is also devoid of any evidence indicating that Mr. … Jones’s burden to establish error on appeal, and he has failed to do so. State v. Grether, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28977, 2019-Ohio- 4243, ¶ 16, quoting State v. Patel, 9th Dist.

Bundy v. Five Rivers Metroparks

152 Ohio App. 3d 426 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2003

To overcome this presumption, the challenger must establish that a statute is “clearly unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.; State v. … (Emphasis added.) 92 Ohio St.3d at 372 [ 750 N.E.2d 554 ], ‘Evolved’ is the key qualifier here.

Brannon v. Austinburg Rehabilitation & Nursing Center

190 Ohio App. 3d 662 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 2010

Brannon’s qualified expert and then awarding ARNC summary judgment, we reverse that judgment and remand the cause as to Ms. … Sovereign Immunity of ACDJFS {¶ 34} Lastly, Ms. Brannon contends that the trial court erred in awarding summary judgment to ACDJFS, finding it to be immune as a political subdivision from Ms.

North Coast Cable Ltd. Partnership v. Hanneman

98 Ohio App. 3d 434 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1994

NCCLP argues the absolute privilege applies only to witnesses who were subpoenaed to testify before legislative committees and voluntary witnesses have only qualified immunity. We disagree. In Costanzo v. … In our opinion, NCCLP did establish a genuine issue for trial. It specifically showed Hanneman’s statement.

Gundel v. Whalen Lawn & Landscaping, L.L.C.

2022 Ohio 2763 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2022

. {¶8} Gundel responded by arguing that WLL was the employer and though Whalen was its sole member, he did not qualify as employer on the facts of this case. … ruling and finds Whalen is entitled to immunity under these statutory provisions.

Brooks v. Ohio State University

111 Ohio App. 3d 342 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 1996

Appellant asserts that R.C. 2305.25 provides a qualified immunity for a member of a quality assurance committee; however, that immunity can be negated if the member acts outside the scope of the committee’s functions or if … In addition, appellant asserts that R.C. 2305.24 establishes immunity for a physician who furnishes information about a patient that he treated, but does not establish immunity for everything the physician might have done