Case law

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

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.

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.

Hall v. Fort Frye Local School District Board of Education

111 Ohio App. 3d 690 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1996

Thus, appellee’s initial decision in our case to purchase and install the irrigation system clearly involved the exercise of protected judgment or discretion, for which appellee is entitled to immunity pursuant to the provisions … In our view, such a decision would not be immunized. To do so would clearly foster the perpetuation of dangerous conditions.

Widdowson v. Lake Cty.

2026 Ohio 67 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2026

Accordingly, “the broad immunity of R.C. … King and Catanese had an ambiguous phrase from an unknown caller at an uncertain location who could not clearly communicate his needs.

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

Hunt v. Alderman

2015 Ohio 4667 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2015

Hunt received workers’ compensation payments for his injuries.  6 {¶14} The Supreme Court has stated that “[c]ommon-law damages are clearly unavailable under R.C. … an intentional tort of an employer, proof beyond that required to prove negligence and beyond that to prove recklessness must be established.

Dearth v. Stanley, 22180 (2-8-2008)

2008 Ohio 487 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2008

may be asserted to establish nonliability: {¶ 30} "(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 or sections 3314.07 and 3746.24 … Even construed in the non-moving party's favor as true, the material allegations in Dearth's complaint fail to establish that Officer Stanley acted in a reckless manner, and he is, therefore, entitled to government immunity

Vasquez-Cromer v. Toledo

2019 Ohio 5149 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2019

R.C. 2744.02(B) apply, and (4) whether appellee is entitled to a defense or qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A). Beck ex rel. Estate of Beck v. Adam Wholesalers of Toledo, Inc., 6th Dist. Sandusky No. … We do not find appellants met their burden to create any issues of fact that were both genuine and material to establish appellee is not immune from liability, and appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Bungard v. Jeffers

2014 Ohio 334 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2014

By establishing the causal connection between Bungard’s injury and employment, Jeffers was entitled to fellow employee immunity as a matter of law. I. … The evidence here clearly showed that Kraton controlled the parking lot where the accident occurred.

State, Ex Rel. Ferguson v. Shoemaker

45 Ohio App. 2d 83 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 21, 1975

If it were otherwise it would mean that one could not mandamus a state officer to perform a clearly mandatory duty or one could not enjoin him from committing a patent and outrageously illegal act. … Chapter 2743, waiving the sovereign immunity of the state, consenting to suits against the state, establishing the Court of Claims, and providing for procedures for such actions, applies only to actions against the state

Ogburn v. Toledo

2019 Ohio 163 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2019

If immunity applies, we then examine whether immunity has been abrogated by the exceptions set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B). Id. … . {¶ 17} Here, the city qualifies for immunity as a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.02(A).

Rieger v. Montgomery County Clerk of Courts, 22575 (1-30-2009)

2009 Ohio 426 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2009

The court reasoned that Rieger had failed to establish an exception to the judicial immunity conferred on the Clerk of Courts and had failed to identify any legal reason why the order should not have been posted. … Judicial immunity is established in R.C.

Lawson v. Mahoning Cty. Mental Health Bd.

2010 Ohio 6388 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2010

Still, although one of these circumstances exists, the political subdivision can re-establish its immunity using the defenses in R.C. 2744.03. ¶{20} Both parties agree that Youngstown has a general grant of immunity … Therefore, we cannot find that R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(o) clearly establishes that licensing a group home is a governmental function. ¶{62} Likewise, we also find no merit with Youngstown’s argument that R.C. 2744.01(C)

Krokey v. City of Cleveland

146 Ohio App. 3d 179 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2001

In fact, R.C. 2744.03(A), by its language, contemplates that a political subdivision is a proper party to a civil action, and sections (6) and (7) establish that an employee has no immunity where the acts or omissions were … Even though a judicial abrogation of common-law sovereign immunity can be appropriate, 8 it would be inappropriate for this court to find a waiver where the Ohio legislature clearly intended to grant immunity.

Piazza v. Cuyahoga Cnty.

98 N.E.3d 1263 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2017

Auth. , 131 Ohio St.3d 418 , 2012-Ohio-570 , 966 N.E.2d 247 , where the court interpreted R.C. 2744.09(B) to hold that an intentional tort alleged against a political subdivision qualifies as matter arising out of the employment … But what the majority fails to recognize is, as harsh or as unfair as that result may be (particularly to people who may be unjustly terminated), carving out an exception to immunity for such a clearly defined group appears

WFG Natl. Title Ins. Co. v. Meehan

107 N.E.3d 60 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2018

The parties also agree that the provisions of R.C. 3905.211 as to qualified immunity is applicable to appellees in the present instance. … The sole dispute is whether Meehan complied with the mandates of R.C. 3905.211(B) to defeat the qualified privilege at the pleading stage. {¶12} Pursuant to R.C. 3905.211(B) in an action where qualified immunity

Ceasor v. City of Cleveland

112 N.E.3d 496 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2018

His own testimony establishes that his visibility was significantly compromised and that he had not activated his overhead lights or sirens. … “The trial court has broad discretion in the admission of evidence and unless it has clearly abused its discretion and the defendant has been materially prejudiced thereby, an appellate court should not disturb the decision

Kendrick v. Cleveland Metroparks Board of Commissioners

102 Ohio App. 3d 739 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 1994

In fact, under R.C. 2744.03(A)(7) the legislature specifically stated: “The political subdivision * * * is entitled to any defense or immunity available at common law or established by the Revised Code.” … Furthermore, the legislature clearly intended for the recreational user statutory immunity to remain applicable to political subdivisions, as evidenced by the language of R.C. 2744.03(A)(7).

Findlay v. Martens

2022 Ohio 4146 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2022

Assignment of Error No. 8 The trial court erred in dismissing Martens claims based on appellees’ qualified immunity. … As Martens has not established a genuine issue of material fact with respect to a sovereign immunity exception in the second tier of the sovereign immunity framework, we need not proceed to the third-tier of the immunity