Case law

Gintert v. Wci Steel, Inc., 2002-T-0124 (12-14-2007)

2007 Ohio 6737 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2007

If the requirements for the qualified privilege are established, then the burden falls on the plaintiff to show by clear and convincing evidence that the statements were made with actual malice, i.e., that the statements … privilege, as they were made on a matter of common interest as part of the grievance procedure established between WCI and the steelworkers' union.

Riscatti v. Prime Properties Ltd. Partnership

2012 Ohio 2941 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2012

Chapter 2744 {¶21} 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.

Honek v. Chidsey

182 N.E.3d 6 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2021

Alternatively, the city contends that if this court finds that the city was acting in a proprietary function, appellees have failed to establish an exception to immunity that would allow the city to be held liable. … Finally, the city contends that even if the appellees establish an exception, then immunity is reinstated under R.C. 2744.02(A)(3) or (5). {¶ 12} Determining whether a political subdivision is immune from tort

State v. Vineyard

106 N.E.3d 780 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2018

However, the statute establishes criteria which must be satisfied if a person is to enjoy the immunity it provides. … Applying the statute to offenses occurring prior to its effective date might also entitle those who are otherwise "qualified individuals" to the vacation of their convictions.

Bluhm v. Blanck & Gargaro, Inc.

62 Ohio App. 451 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1939

The obligation of the city of Lakewood to respond in damages for negligence is the only subject of discussion in the Hutchinson case, supra, but all of the other questions were clearly before the court. … If the immunity which the city enjoys as announced in Hutchinson v.

Tuleta v. Med. Mut. of Ohio

2014 Ohio 930 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2014

immunity. … available at common law or established by the Revised Code. {¶29} As discussed in the first assigned error, it is well-settled common law that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suit for acts committed

George v. Newburgh Hts.

2012 Ohio 2065 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 10, 2012

If the movant fails to meet this burden, summary judgment is not appropriate; if the movant does meet this burden, summary judgment will be appropriate only if the nonmovant fails to establish the existence of a genuine … Id. {¶15} Thus, when 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

City of Trotwood v. South Central Construction, L.L.C.

192 Ohio App. 3d 69 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 2011

Mendenhall, 188 Ohio App.3d 126 , 2010-Ohio-1904 , 934 N.E.2d 951, ¶ 5 . {¶ 22} In the present case, the residents do not dispute that the city qualifies as a political subdivision for purposes of establishing immunity under … We need not reach this issue because the residents have failed to establish that the city ever lost its immunity under R.C. 2744.02.

Dub v. City of Beachwood

191 Ohio App. 3d 238 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 2010

The Supreme Court has 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); the second tier is to analyze … The literature given to the passengers clearly states that passengers must provide an escort if they are in need of personal assistance.

Clapper v. Little Sandy Creek Ruritan Club, Inc.

2022 Ohio 1920 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2022

To establish an order affects a substantial right, the appellant must establish that, in the absence of immediate review of the order, he or she will be denied effective relief in the future. … Moritz, 39 Ohio App.3d 132, 529 N.E.2d 1290 (10th Dist.1987) (The denial of a motion for summary judgment in a case brought under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code, which motion is based on a claim of qualified immunity

Smith v. Euclid

2019 Ohio 3099 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 2019

Moreover, even if it had caused damage, the City established that it was immune from liability for such discretionary acts under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5). … Negligence−Nuisance Here, the parties do not dispute that the City is a political subdivision, and thus, qualifies for general immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A).

Liposchak v. Administrator, Bureau of Workers' Compensation

138 Ohio App. 3d 368 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2000

First, it cannot be said that Edith qualifies as “wholly” dependent under R.C. 4123.59(B), nor can it be said that Edith qualifies under R.C. 4123.59(C) as partially dependent. … Next, in addition to not qualifying as wholly or partially dependent under subsections (B) and (C), appellant does not qualify under R.C. 4123.59(D)(2) for presumed dependency.

Firstenergy Corp. v. City of Cleveland

179 Ohio App. 3d 280 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2008

may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶ 14} “ * * * {¶ 15} “(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 discretion … Accordingly, * * * the trial court erred by denying the City the protections of qualified immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.”

Brown v. Ohio Dept of Rehab. & Corr.

2013 Ohio 4207 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2013

immunity. … Additionally, appellant contends the trial court erred in finding that Gilliam and Mason were entitled to qualified immunity. {¶ 20} Our review of the granting of summary judgment is de novo. Stevens v.

Spence v. Liberty Township Trustees

109 Ohio App. 3d 357 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1996

may be asserted to establish nonliability: U * * * “(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 … However, the trial transcript clearly reveals that the Civ.R. 50(A) motion was based on the defense of statutory immunity provided under R.C. 2744.03(A).

Fediaczko v. Mahoning Cty. Children Servs.

2012 Ohio 6090 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2012

This does not establish that Ms. … In 1994, he was arrested for failure to comply with a court order and driving under suspension. {¶69} The estate urges that the criminal history of Jennifer Snyder and David Sharpe clearly demonstrates that a child

Edvon v. Morales

2018 Ohio 5171 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2018

The officers moved for summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity, but the trial court denied the motion, and the officers appealed. … The trial court denied the police chief’s summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity.

Williams v. Stefka

2012 Ohio 353 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2012

Burks’s conduct qualifies as willful or wanton misconduct. … No. 72283, 1998 WL 742171 (Oct. 22, 1998) (an amendment to add the phrase “wilful or wanton conduct” to defeat statutory immunity is insufficient without “new allegations of any operative facts which might establish wilful

Lewis v. Ohio Department of Health

66 Ohio App. 3d 761 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1990

It clearly was not the intent of the state legislature to make the state, in effect, a superlative provider of insurance. … The Supreme Court, in interpreting R.C. 2743.02, which established the Ohio Court of Claims and a limited immunity on the part of the state of Ohio, ruled that: “ * * * [T]he state cannot be sued for its legislative or judicial

Doe v. Greenville City Schools

174 N.E.3d 917 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2021

’s] immunity.” … As we have indicated, the record in the present procedural posture of this case is insufficient to establish what, if any, equipment was required, and furthermore, the record in insufficient to establish what, if any, equipment