Case law

Mosley v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation

2011 Ohio 3072 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2011

However, if on-the-job privileges are suspended, the CCBMR/DD may transfer the staff member to any non-driving position for which the staff member is qualified. … The court’s order stated that Counts 4 and 9 were “denied,” on the basis “of immunity from intentional torts.”

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).

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

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

Horton v. City of Dayton

53 Ohio App. 3d 68 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1988

Dayton’s police officer testified that he was responding to an emergency call, and there seems to be no doubt that there was a dispatch over the radio that would qualify as an emergency call. … Horton contends that the police officer’s own deposition established, as a matter of law, that the police officer had failed to maintain an assured clear distance ahead, so that he was negligent as a matter of law.

Bush v. Cleveland Mun. School Dist.

2013 Ohio 5420 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2013

R.C. 2744.01(F) provides that a public school district qualifies as a political subdivision for purposes of R.C. … Reciting language from R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) to establish an exception to CMSD’s governmental immunity, without additional facts to support the allegation, is not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.  {¶14}

Dalrymple v. Westerville

201 N.E.3d 382 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2022

In its decision, the court held that appellees were entitled to political subdivision immunity under R.C. 2744.02 and 2744.03, and that appellant failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to her claims for fraud … Bitar told her "they had made a mistake that I didn't qualify, my use didn't qualify for the money, so it changed * * * you know."

Kinstle v. Jennison

179 Ohio App. 3d 291 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2008

The moving party must establish (1) that there are no genuine issues of material fact, (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and … Moreover, the work of the clerk of courts qualifies as a governmental function under R.C. 2744.02(C)(2).

Ruckman v. Smith

190 N.E.3d 707 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 31, 2022

Chapter 2744 establishes a three-tier analysis to determine whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. … Therefore, we find that appellees did not establish the “in repair” immunity exception under R.C. 2744.02(B)(3).

Gumpl v. Bost

81 Ohio App. 3d 370 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1992

Under federal law, a government official or employee is entitled to immunity unless the official or employee knew or should have known that the conduct at issue would violate a clearly established right. Harlow v. … There is no provision directing the Court of Claims to determine whether the state employee or official knew or should have known that his conduct was violating a clearly established right, an inquiry that would be necessary

Wilson v. Marino

164 Ohio App. 3d 662 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 2005

that Plaintiff-Appellant’s expert witness was qualified to testify as to the standard of care? … On redirect, Diment testified, “[T]here is a direct relationship between [appellant’s] work related injury, her subsequent chiropractic treatment, and her subsequent surgical treatment.” {¶ 57} The record clearly shows that

Young v. Durrani

2016 Ohio 5526 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2016

Chapter 2744 establishes immunity and defenses for political subdivisions and their employees. … Prior to April 2003, plaintiffs had a qualified ability to access information in a peer-review file under former R.C. 2305.251. Bailey v.

Buttari v. Norwalk

2023 Ohio 4163 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2023

In order to determine whether a political subdivision qualifies for immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744, we apply a “three-tiered analysis.” Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51, 2011-Ohio-4674, 955 N.E.2d 954, ¶ 13. … Since this is an element that must be established in order to trigger the physical defect exception, appellant’s failure to establish it means that the general grant of immunity as to appellees remains intact.

Landwehr v. Village of Batavia

173 Ohio App. 3d 599 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2007

The village moved for a Civ.R. 12(C) judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the village was immune from suit due to sovereign immunity. … Revised Code in a bill entitled The Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act”). {¶ 19} Clearly, with the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, the Ohio Legislature sought to codify the sovereign immunity doctrine and

Proctor v. Ford Motor Co.

32 Ohio App. 2d 165 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1972

Lucas Cty., 1928). 4 The reach of the rule extends liability to the employer on the same limited terms of partial immunity that the Workmen’s Compensation Act establishes for the initial injury, Section 35, Article II, Ohio … aspects, was clearly designed to protect no coworkers except those who were engaged in the productive or operating process in a direct relationship.

Mason v. Roberts

35 Ohio App. 2d 29 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1971

C. 4399.01 created an immunity from civil liability in all cases not covered therein. … any affirmative defense or immunity against liability.

Dunlap v. W.L. Logan Trucking Co.

161 Ohio App. 3d 51 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 17, 2005

Thus, while the word “shall” establishes a mandatory duty, the word “should” requires ODOT to use its discretion and engineering judgment. See Jeska v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (Sept. 16, 1999), Franklin App. … To qualify for the defense, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had no reason to anticipate or foresee the sudden loss of consciousness.

Kacin v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles

2025 Ohio 5815 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2025

{¶ 3} R.C. 4503.41 established special license plates for qualified disabled veterans. … permitted by the waiver of immunity contained in [R.C.] 2743.02.”

Dismukes v. Ashtabula Cty. Children Servs. Bd.

240 N.E.3d 902 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2024

“[T]he actions of a prosecutor are not absolutely immune merely because they are performed by a prosecutor. Qualified immunity represents the norm …. … When individuals perform such functions, they are entitled to qualified immunity, at best. Holloway, 220 F.3d at 775.

State v. Ruley

2018 Ohio 3201 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2018

In the particular facts of Melms, we determined that “the clear and unambiguous 30-day window set forth by the legislature” operates to deny R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) immunity even to an otherwise qualified individual who was … He therefore is not immune from prosecution under the “clear and unambiguous” language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b)(ii).