Case law

Berner v. New Leaf Residential Servs., Inc.

2024 Ohio 1788 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2024

Under the first tier of the analysis, there is no dispute that CCBDD qualifies as a political subdivision. … Therefore, CCBDD is entitled to immunity from suit unless Berner can establish under the second tier that one of the exceptions to immunity applies.

Camargo v. Toledo

2024 Ohio 488 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2024

Chapter 2744, and qualified immunity. {¶ 5} The city’s April 11, 2022 motion for summary judgment argued that Camargo failed to raise a cognizable tort claim. … With immunity presumptively established, whether any exceptions to immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B) must be determined. {¶ 17} Camargo fails to argue the availability of any R.C. 2744.02(B) exceptions to immunity.

Scott v. Ohio Department of Taxation

11 Ohio App. 3d 20 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1983

R.C. 2743.02(A)(1) does not purport to limit the waiver of immunity from liability to common-law claims for relief. … If the cause of action arose at the time of filing of the petition in bankruptcy, or at the time of entering the order for relief, plaintiff’s action is clearly barred by the statute of limitations since it was brought more

Patrick v. Wertman

113 Ohio App. 3d 713 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 1996

The court in Bettio stated that “where a section 1983 action has been asserted against public officials who may be entitled to * * * qualified immunity, the complaint must state with factual specificity the bases upon which … the potentially immune defendant will be unable to successfully maintain the defense of immunity.”

David v. Matter

96 N.E.3d 1012 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2017

An “employee’s entitlement to statutory immunity is a separate question from the plaintiff’s ability to establish the elements of his or her claim.” Argabrite v. Neer, 149 8. … In finding that the latter of the two options is appropriate, the majority holds that a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress may be brought against a political subdivision employee who would otherwise qualify

Provens v. Woodridge Place Apts.

2023 Ohio 1388 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2023

No. 18AP-567, 2019-Ohio-3158, ¶ 11 (additionally noting “where the face of the complaint does not clearly establish a political subdivision’s immunity, a court must deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings”). … statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) might apply”).

Jones v. Ohio Dept. of Health

69 Ohio App. 3d 480 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1990

Results of the new test conducted when plaintiff was approximately thirteen months old showed that plaintiff had "classic" PKU, a form of the disease clearly diagnosable by blood tests. … However, the regulation does not provide that only the state could perform the PKU tests required by R.C. 3701.501; it expressly permits qualified private laboratories to perform these tests.

Thompson v. Smith

178 Ohio App. 3d 656 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2008

These circumstances are clearly distinguishable from the instant case, where Officer Smith failed to engage any of his emergency equipment and likely travelled at a much higher speed. {¶ 54} Officer Smith and Cortland also … may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶ 72} “ * * * {¶ 73} “ * * * {¶ 74} “(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

Riveredge Dentistry Partnership v. Cleveland

2021 Ohio 3817 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2021

of the immunity analysis. … In order to demonstrate that the language set forth under R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) would remove the district’s immunity, appellant must establish the following: (1) the elements required to sustain a negligence action, and (2

Scott v. Kashmiry

2015 Ohio 3902 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2015

We consider separately the city's immunity and Officer Kashmiry's immunity. A. The City's Immunity {¶ 13} Appellants first argue the trial court erred in determining the city is immune from liability. … Howland Local Schools, 113 Ohio St.3d 314, 2007-Ohio- 2070, ¶ 12. {¶ 15} The parties do not dispute that, as a political subdivision performing a governmental function, the city qualifies for immunity under R.C. 2744.02

Lail v. Madisonville Child Care Project, Inc.

55 Ohio App. 3d 37 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 1989

MCCP is immune from any civil liability which might be incurred as a result of Chambers’ report by the express provisions of R.C. 2151.421(G). … The statement made to Marco’s mother was clearly made to protect or further a common interest. Hahn v. Kotten (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 237 , 72 O.O. 2d 134, 331 N.E. 2d 713 .

Davis v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

2 Ohio App. 3d 475 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1981

judgment, to waive the immunity given to a complying employer by the Ohio Constitution. … We hold that a complying employer does not surrender its constitutional and statutory immunity from suits arising out of employment unless and until it executes a document specifically waiving that immunity.

State v. Haddix

2018 Ohio 2833 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2018

Clearly, defendant wishes to have his cake of citizenship and eat it too. … Similarly, it has never granted immunity status to [DOUGLAS EDWARD HADDIX]. Thus, [Appellant] is precluded from asserting sovereign immunity. United States v.

Craig v. Amos

2026 Ohio 129 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2026

In finding that the informant enjoyed absolute immunity, as opposed to qualified, the Court held that: An affidavit, statement or other information provided to a prosecuting attorney, reporting the actual … In both cases, the Court held the immunity in question was qualified rather than absolute, such that the immunity can be abrogated by malicious intent or bad faith conduct.

Powell v. Cleveland

202 N.E.3d 794 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2022

Todd is readily distinguishable because the alleged hazardous conditions in the roadway were potholes, and it is well-established that a pothole in the roadway may qualify as a hazardous condition. … Accordingly, the Powells have failed to satisfy their reciprocal burden of presenting evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the steel plate or dip were obstructions to remove immunity

Williams v. First United Church of Christ

40 Ohio App. 2d 187 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1973

Cir.), 130 F. 2d 810 , and remarked, at page 476 of its opinion: “We cannot state our general position on this question [the rule of immunity] more clearly than did Judge Rutledge state his as follows: “ ‘The law’s emphasis … The court recognized the exceptions to the doctrine of immunity for nonhospital charitable institutions established by Gibbon v. Y. W. C. A., supra, and Blankenship v.

Ziegler v. Mahoning County Sheriff's Department

137 Ohio App. 3d 831 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2000

Appellant must first establish an exception to immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(2). This he has failed to do.” (Citation omitted.) Abdalla, supra. … The express language of R.C. 2744.02(B)(4), however, clearly provides that the exceptions to immunity listed in that subsection do not apply to injuries or loss sustained in, “jails, places of juvenile detention, workhouses

Johns v. Horton

149 Ohio App. 3d 252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2002

Court of Claims after immunity had been established was improper because there was no need for an additional immunity determination. … On the one hand, the statute clearly states that the Court of Claims has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine initially whether an employee is immune, while the court of common pleas has jurisdiction over the underlying

Dietz v. Harshbarger

89 N.E.3d 1271 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 22, 2017

“Accordingly, the burden of proof is on the political subdivision to establish general immunity.” Id., citing Slane at ¶ 30, and citing Browning v. Fostoria, 3d Dist. … Franklin Nos. 11AP-07 and 11AP-09, 2011-Ohio-6232, ¶ 19. {¶21} “When a political subdivision establishes general immunity, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that one of the exceptions to immunity

Beachwood City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Warrensville Hts. City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

2025 Ohio 830 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2025

The existence of a contract having been established, it is now [Beachwood’s] burden to prove a breach and damages, and [Warrensville’s] right to contest the proof of those elements. … voluntarily entering into a settlement agreement to resolve a dispute between the two school districts is not an “obligation of sovereignty,” nor was it performed “pursuant to legislative requirement,” sufficient to qualify