Case law

Williams v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

145 Ohio App. 3d 530 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to immunity from suit in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

Roe v. Hamilton County Department of Human Services

53 Ohio App. 3d 120 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1988

“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a qualified immunity is appropriate, they should have an opportunity to show whether any clearly established constitutional or statutory standards were violated.

Harvey v. Republic Services of Ohio II, 2007 Ca 00278 (3-23-2009)

2009 Ohio 1343 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. {¶ 21} "VI. … immunity if their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Cannavino v. Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland, L.L.C.

2017 Ohio 380 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2017

Williams contends that he is shielded from such claims under qualified immunity. … if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

State v. Sieminski

92 N.E.3d 1252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2017

“A statute must clearly proclaim its own retroactivity to overcome the presumption of prospective application. Retroactivity is not to be inferred.” State v. … Sieminski’s motion to dismiss because she is not a qualified individual pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii), and therefore not eligible for immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b).

Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino

157 N.E.3d 406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2020

Additionally, the defendant officers asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the appellants’ Section 1983 claim because their conduct “did not violate a clearly established federal right which a reasonable … Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to overcome the qualified immunity and establish the deprivation of a federally protected constitutional right.

Akron v. Pari

2019 Ohio 1083 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2019

Pasco’s motion to dismiss because the unambiguous language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) limits immunity to minor drug possession offenses. … This Court concluded that the terms of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) are unambiguous: The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense

State v. Melms

101 N.E.3d 747 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 18, 2018

Melms immunity from prosecution due to his confinement is contrary to the policy considerations underlying the immunity statute. {¶ 14} Melms asserts that he is a qualified individual as defined by R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii … The newly established immunity from prosecution set out in R.C. 2925.11(B) is not a fundamental right." {¶ 20} According to the State, "the class distinction drawn by this law is based solely on whether an individual has

Gordon v. Mt. Carmel Farms, L.L.C.

2021 Ohio 1233 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2021

Under this defense, "[p]ublic officials, including police officers, who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate that either (1) a constitutional right was violated or (2) that the right was clearly established, -7-

State v. McInnes

2026 Ohio 734 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … to qualified immunity.

Gessner v. City of Union

159 Ohio App. 3d 43 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2004

Subsequently, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss on the latter two grounds, but overruled the motion to the extent that it was based on Union’s qualified immunity. … .” {¶ 31} Discharge is clearly a matter that stems from an employment relationship.

Watenza v. City of Dayton, 21984 (2-22-2008)

2008 Ohio 749 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2008

In addition, the defendants argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that Appellant failed to establish a § 1983 complaint against the City. … Qualified immunity raised as a defense protects government officials from "`liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

State v. McInnes

Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … to qualified immunity.

Caygill v. Jablonski

78 Ohio App. 3d 807 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1992

R.C. 4123.741 clearly provides immunity to a tortfeasor “employee” from liability for damages resulting from injuries received in the course of and arising out of the injured employee’s employment. … The General Assembly has established certain basic guidelines to assist in determining legislative intent.

Steplight v. Belpulsi

76 Ohio App. 3d 384 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1991

Pursuant to Harlow , a person is immune from liability if he or she acts in such a way that the action does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … The court restated *390 the purpose of the qualified immunity rule in Anderson v.

Lee v. City of Cleveland

151 Ohio App. 3d 581 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2003

These agreed facts demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Officers Svoboda and Wolf were entitled to qualified immunity. … Public officials who perform discretionary functions are generally immune in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Rich v. Erie County Department of Human Resources

106 Ohio App. 3d 88 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1995

Qualified immunity may not be asserted as a defense to an action alleging the failure of a public official to perform ministerial acts. (Scot Lad Foods, Inc. v. … It draws a distinction between ministerial and discretionary duties, and between absolute and qualified immunity.

Griner v. Minster Board of Education

128 Ohio App. 3d 425 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1998

may be asserted to establish nonliability: "(6) In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section and in circumstances not covered by that division * * *, the employee is immune from liability … Rather, appellees proceeded in their motion for summary judgment on the assumption that whether or not negligence was established, they were immune from liability.

Leonhardt v. Akron

2019 Ohio 5223 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2019

clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. … We therefore conclude the trial court erred in finding Officers Sams and Smith were entitled to qualified immunity. {¶37} Dr.

Fisher v. Ahmed

153 N.E.3d 612 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2020

Even assuming that the facts and allegations of the complaint conclusively established that Ahmed is generally personally immune from liability, the complaint does not conclusively establish the inapplicability of an exception … Once established, a qualified privilege can be defeated by a clear and convincing showing that the communication was made with actual malice.