Case law

Globe American Casualty Co. v. City of Cleveland

99 Ohio App. 3d 674 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1994

Cleveland further argued that R.C. 2933.41 does not expressly impose liability upon the city but, rather, merely establishes the city’s responsibilities and, therefore, does not provide an exception to the sovereign immunity … Based upon Sielaff, supra, and Reed, supra, clearly the relevant statute in the case sub judice, i.e., R.C. 2933.41, supra, establishes a mandatory duty owed by a law enforcement agency to persons entitled to possession of

Glick Mgt., L.L.C. v. Cincinnati

2025 Ohio 2572 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2025

So long as a complaint (1) states a claim in a manner sufficient to place the defendant on notice of the conduct at issue and (2) does not obviously or conclusively establish that the subdivision would be immune, it should … do not “obviously or conclusively establish” the city would be immune under R.C. 2744.02.

Carmen v. Link

119 Ohio App. 3d 244 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1997

In the present case, appellees assert that the ninth defense of their amended answer establishes the defense of immunity for injury by a fellow servant. … Clearly, the type of immunity found in the West Virginia statutes granting immunity to employers and fellow employees for the employer’s contribution to the workers’ compensation fund does not violate the Ohio Constitution

Garmback v. Cleveland

2022 Ohio 1490 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 2022

As Garmback has failed to point to evidence in the record that establishes a genuine issue of material fact that would allow her to recover under a theory of negligence, the City was entitled to immunity under R.C. 2744.02 … Regardless, “[i]t is * * * well established that political subdivisions are immune from intentional torts under R.C. 2744.02.” CR Hill, LLC v. Westlake, 8th Dist.

Ezerski v. Mendenhall

188 Ohio App. 3d 126 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2010

The Ezerskis also contend that Vandalia cannot re-establish its immunity using a statutory defense. … Still, although one of these circumstances exists, the political subdivision can re-establish its immunity using the defenses in R.C. 2744.03.

Fischer v. Kent State Univ.

2015 Ohio 3569 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2015

Finally, "[i]f a defendant establishes all five elements for the application of a qualified privilege, a plaintiff can defeat its application only by showing by clear and convincing evidence … The affidavits and depositions taken in either the EEOC matter, or in this matter, are absolutely immune. {¶ 28} In summary, whether barred by the statute of limitations, a qualified privilege, or immunity, none of

Elias v. Akron

2019 Ohio 4657 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2019

General Immunity and the R.C. 2744.02(B) Exceptions {¶10} There is no dispute that the City qualified, at the first tier of the analysis, for a general grant of immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A). … . 2744.02(B)(3) exception applies, the City retains immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A).” {¶20} If an R.C. 2744.02(B) exception to immunity applies, the political subdivision may still establish nonliability through

Clemons v. Cardington

2022 Ohio 513 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 2022

I., III. {¶13} In Appellant’s First and Third Assignments of Error, Appellant argues Appellee failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Appellant is entitled to political subdivision immunity … The third tier is to determine whether the political subdivision is entitled to a defense or qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A). Vasquez-Comer v. City of Toledo, 6th Dist. Lucas No.

Webber v. Ohio Dep't of Pub. Safety

103 N.E.3d 283 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2017

on appellant's defamation claim and the immunity issue. … In it, appellant argues "this situation clearly involves an allegation that [appellant] did not perform her job duties because of bias or prejudice," which constitutes defamation per se. (Memo. Contra at 4.)

State ex rel. Hostetter v. Hunt

24 Ohio Law. Abs. 350 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1936

date said persons have been the duly appointed, qualified and acting executors of the last will and testament of Carrie Jacobs Brown and of her estate. … defaults, not an immunity from the collection of a valid tax.

Kennedy v. Specht

2020 Ohio 624 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2020

The court found that Iarocci and Specht were entitled to qualified immunity as employees of a political subdivision and, accordingly, “immune from liability” unless one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions applied. … The trial court erred as a matter of law in affording qualified immunity to the defendants herein and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on that basis.” {¶13} Summary judgment is appropriate when

Carter v. Reese

2014 Ohio 5395 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2014

The scope of the immunity protection provided in a Good Samaritan statute varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. … "Mere negligence is not converted into wanton misconduct unless the evidence establishes a disposition to perversity on the part of the tortfeasor.

Riehm v. Green Springs Rural Volunteer Fire Dept.

122 N.E.3d 226 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 2018

He argued that while it was clear that Lorri’s death was a tragic accident, the evidence did not establish that Knieriemen’s actions were in bad faith, wanton, or reckless to remove immunity. … Thus in the first tier analysis, GSRVFD would qualify for the immunities in R.C. 2744.02, and Knieriemen as its employee, would as well. d.

Roe v. Franklin County

109 Ohio App. 3d 772 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1996

Although plaintiffs refer generally to immunity in their brief, plaintiffs’ complaint potentially involved two separate and distinct concepts of governmental immunity, the statutory immunity provided by R.C. … Chapter 2744, which applies to state law claims, and the federal doctrine of qualified immunity, which applies solely to federal claims.

Victorian's Midnight Cafe L.L.C. v. Goodman

2016 Ohio 7947 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 2016

In its decision, the trial court found that, because Goodman's actions occurred during his employment as director of the department, Goodman qualified for immunity under R.C. 9.86. … Thus, if Goodman were bringing the action in his official capacity under that statute, as he seemed to be, he would qualify for immunity unless he were somehow acting outside of his official responsibilities.

Catalina v. Crawford

19 Ohio App. 3d 150 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1984

Both defendants qualify as officials under this definition. … The supervision of plaintiff’s work assignments was clearly the responsibility of her supervisors (defendants).

Dougherty v. Torrence

19 Ohio App. 3d 256 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1984

On an appeal of that decision, the Supreme Court reversed this court, finding that volunteer firemen did qualify for the statutory immunity. … There is merit to Dougherty’s argument that the public is best served when emergency vehicles are clearly and distinctly marked, but it ignores the fact that members of volunteer fire departments do not ordinarily assemble

State v. Evankovich

2010 Ohio 3157 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2010

However, the trial court in the case sub judice clearly states in the judgment entry that it relied exclusively upon the legal conclusion in Shelton that “[t]he Defendant cannot be convicted under R.C. 4729.51(C)(1) since … At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court observed that the facts of the case establish that he is a licensed terminal distributor of dangerous drugs. (Hrg.

Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

87 Ohio App. 3d 704 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 18, 1993

In order for a duly licensed and regulated sanitary landfill to be found liable for maintaining a nuisance, negligence must be established, ie., a qualified nuisance. … Portage Homes, Inc. (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2 OBR 572, 442 N.E.2d 749 , paragraph two of the syllabus (defense of sovereign immunity is not available, in the absence of a statute providing immunity, to a municipal corporation

State Ex Rel. King v. Mahoning County Board of Elections

126 Ohio App. 3d 118 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1998

and good faith immunity. … Given the pending primary election to be held on May 5, 1998, this court established an expedited schedule for filing stipulations and respective motions for summary judgment. This matter now comes on for decision.