Case law

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

Holmes v. Cuyahoga Community College

169 N.E.3d 8 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2021

Exception to Immunity Pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c) R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) establishes the framework of analysis for determining whether a political subdivision employee is entitled to immunity. … As Civ.R. 8 clearly establishes that Ohio is a notice- pleading state, “Ohio law does not ordinarily require a plaintiff to plead operative facts with particularity.” Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A.

Waggoner v. Carsey

129 Ohio App. 3d 79 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 1998

In the alternative, he asserted that he was shielded from liability by the doctrines of governmental immunity and/or absolute or qualified immunity. … Chapter 2744 nor qualified immunity was applicable on the question of *83 Kohl’s policy on release of prisoners.

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.

Martin v. Central Ohio Transit Authority

70 Ohio App. 3d 83 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1990

Chapter 2744, Ohio’s Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, provides personal, qualified immunity for employees of political subdivisions. … 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

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.

Rasmussen v. Hancock Cty. Commrs., 5-06-54 (5-27-2008)

2008 Ohio 2498 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 27, 2008

First, the court must determine whether the entity claiming immunity qualifies as a political subdivision and whether the harm occurred in connection with a *Page 13 governmental or proprietary function. … may be asserted to establish nonliability: (3) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the action or failure to act by the employee involved that gave rise to the claim of liability was within the discretion

Battelle Memorial Institute v. Big Darby Creek Shooting Range

192 Ohio App. 3d 287 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2011

At the time of its establishment, a shooting range shall comply with all existing local ordinances, regulations, or laws. 1 {¶ 5} R.C. 1533.85 is titled “Immunities regarding noise at shooting ranges.” … Davis, was qualified by the trial court as an expert witness, but it is not entirely clear from the record the specific area in which Davis was qualified as an expert.

Buck v. Reminderville

2014 Ohio 1389 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2014

The nonmoving party must identify some evidence that establishes a genuine issue of material fact, and may not rely upon the allegations and denials in the pleadings. … Id. {¶9} There are two classes of privileged communications: (1) absolutely privileged and (2) qualified or conditionally privileged. Id.

Whitler v. McFaul

123 Ohio App. 3d 199 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 1997

In addition, appellees claim the protection of “qualified immunity” for their actions. … Generally, the determination of whether appellees are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity for their actions turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action and is, therefore, a question of fact.

Young v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation

2012 Ohio 3082 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2012

First, is the general rule set forth under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) that political subdivisions qualify for immunity. Id. at ¶ 10-11. … may be asserted to establish nonliability: *** (5) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury, death, or loss to person or property resulted from the exercise of judgment or

Riscatti v. Prime Properties Ltd. Partnership

2012 Ohio 2921 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2012

Chapter 2744 {¶24} The Supreme Court set forth a three-tiered analysis to determine whether a political subdivision is immune from tort liability: the first tier is to establish immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) … These policy considerations apply equally whether the immunity in question is based on R.C. Chapter 2744 or another provision of the law, including federal qualified immunity.

Mangelluzzi v. Morley

2015 Ohio 3143 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2015

Because Civ.R. 8 clearly establishes that Ohio is a notice-pleading state, “Ohio law does not ordinarily require a plaintiff to plead operative facts with particularity.” Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. … We find that the face of the pleadings do not establish as a matter of law that all of the statements identified in the complaint are protected opinions. 3.

Miskinis v. Chester Township Park District

112 Ohio App. 3d 466 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1996

R.C. 2744.03(A) delineates the scope of qualified statutory immunity afforded to a political subdivision and provides that: “(3) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the action or failure to act by the employee … Accordingly, appellees were entitled to qualified statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.03 and to judgment as a matter of law. Further, we note that appellant failed to properly plead any of the tort claims.

HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Trust Co. v. Teagarden

2013 Ohio 5816 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2013

LEXIS 14054 (June 6, 2007) (finding that litigation immunity, witness immunity, nor qualified immunity under the First Amendment shields defendants from liability under the FDCPA). {¶88} Testimony presented in the … form of an affidavit may be protected under absolute witness immunity, however, this immunity does not extend to the “complaining witness.”

Lakemore v. Schell

2020 Ohio 4453 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 2020

Co., 84 Ohio App.3d 96, 99 (8th Dist.1992). {¶12} “Civ.R. 12(C) clearly confines the trial court’s analysis to the material allegations set forth in the pleadings and any [written instrument] attach[ed] thereto, … This Court has held that while a written instrument attached to a complaint or answer qualifies as part of the pleadings, not every document attached to the pleadings qualifies as a written instrument under Civ.R. 10(C)

Wissel v. Ohio High School Athletic Assn.

78 Ohio App. 3d 529 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 1992

Ill OHSAA argued below and continues to insist on appeal that it is immune from tort liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Clearly, the sins charged are of omission, not commission.

FV-I, Inc., In Trust for Morgan Stanley Mtge. Capital Holdings, L.L.C. v. Townsend-Young

2020 Ohio 5184 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 2020

The Youngs cannot overcome the doctrine of qualified immunity unless they are able to demonstrate privity with the firm’s client or were able to show that the firm and lawyer acted with malice. Solomon v. … Based on the sparse evidence submitted in response to appellees’ motion for summary judgment, the Youngs are unable to overcome application of qualified immunity.

Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. City of Columbus

49 Ohio App. 3d 50 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 1989

When the state consents to be sued, it may qualify and draw perimeters around that granted right without violating due process or equal protection. … We find this *55 application of the rational basis test to be clearly erroneous.

Weaver v. Deevers

180 N.E.3d 619 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2021

Chapter 2744 immunity on all claims. … Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237, 243, 331 N.E.2d 713 (1975). {¶24} “Even in a case where a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of defamation, a defendant may invoke the defense of conditional or qualified privilege