Case law

Simpson v. Patton

1 Ohio App. 157 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 1913

him, the said James Carter, to be justice of the peace, as aforesaid,, authorizing and empowering him to execute and discharge, all and singular, the duties appertaining to said office, and to enjoy all the privileges and immunities … thereof.” *160 Now, by the statute, and by the commission of the governor, clearly James Carter had the right to continue to act as justice of the peace until his successor was elected and qualified, and it is conceded that

Rondy v. Richland Newhope Industries, Inc.

2016 Ohio 118 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2016

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 … Id. at ¶ 28. “ ‘[M]ere negligence is not converted into wanton misconduct unless the evidence establishes a disposition to perversity on the part of the tortfeasor’ ”. Fabrey v.

Winbush v. Cincinnati Music Festival

2022 Ohio 2799 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2022

Chapter 2744 establishes a three-tiered analysis to determine whether a political subdivision, such as the city, is entitled to immunity. Brown v. Cincinnati, 2020-Ohio-5418, 162 N.E.3d 1274, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.). … {¶17} A majority of the exceptions clearly are inapplicable and necessitate no further analysis.

Goebel v. Minster

2020 Ohio 5467 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 2020

Thus we must proceed to the third tier of the immunity analysis. {¶28} Minster argues on appeal that even if we determined that appellees alleged sufficient facts to establish that their injuries were the result … This is not a finding that Minster is necessarily liable or even that immunity could not be established later in a summary judgment proceeding if undisputed facts warranted such a finding.

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

New Lebanon v. Krahn

2015 Ohio 4791 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2015

Thus, the Court concludes as it did previously that [the Village] was engaged in a proprietary function when it filed the instant suit and qualifies as an exception to statutory immunity. { … may be asserted to establish nonliability:” (Emphasis added). {¶ 67} We need not address the enumerated defenses and immunities in R.C. 2744.03.

Lawson v. Mahoning Cty. Mental Health Bd.

2010 Ohio 6389 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2010

While the complaint clearly did raise common law claims against MCMHB, we find that the trial court did not commit error when it considered the immunity argument. ¶{7} The estate’s final argument is that the trial … It stated that immunity was raised for the first time in the response and thus, was outside the scope of its review and would not be considered. It then found that MCMHB failed to establish that R.C.

Weiner v. Hts. Med. Bldg., L.L.C.

2025 Ohio 2534 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2025

City’s answer, filed by its director of law, included an affirmative defense alleging it “is entitled to immunity, including statutory, absolute, or qualified immunity, as well as immunity from punitive damages, including … The Windsor Court merely rejected any contention that this court had jurisdiction over issues clearly unrelated to the benefit of an alleged immunity. In Hale v.

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)

Armbruster v. West Unity Police Department

127 Ohio App. 3d 478 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 1, 1998

APPENDIX A The assignments of error are: “Ohio Revised Code Section 2744.02(B), by incorporating Ohio Revised Code Section 2744.03, provides a qualified immunity to political subdivisions.” … The Sixth District Court of Appeals has clearly and regularly followed the three-tier immunity analysis discussed above. See Fowler v. Williams Cty.

State ex rel. Visintine & Co. v. Alexander

79 Ohio Law. Abs. 532 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1958

This is an original action in mandamus wherein the relator is seeking an order directing the respondents, who are the duly appointed, qualified and acting Trustees of the Sinking Fund for the City of Columbus, to pay to it … In addition to this, it must appear that the particular act which constitutes an absolute obligation is devolved upon the particular person or officer sought to be coerced; and a plain dereliction of duty must be established

Atkins v. Walker

65 Ohio App. 2d 136 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 1979

C. 2305.25 is an immunity statute and R. C. 2305.251 is a privilege statute. R. … L. & Med. 245; Langhenry, Immunity of In-Hospital Staff Committee Members and Confidentiality of Staff Committee Records, 24 Federation of Insurance Counsel, No. 4, page 3.

Vey v. State

35 Ohio App. 324 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1929

The additional prerequisite of the certificate of a reputable physician is, under the wording of the statute, applicable only to eases where, upon arraignment, the defendant seeks immunity from pleading to the indictment … It was clearly the duty of counsel for the accused, if he was to avail himself of the court’s omission to call the experts to testify at the trial, to have called the court’s attention to that subject, which, as far as the

Walker v. Mid-States Terminal, Inc.

17 Ohio App. 3d 19 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1984

That the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Stout for the reason that the evidence presented established the applicability of the dual-capacity exception to employer immunity under the Workers’ Compensation … The writing judge, however, believes that the evidence presented clearly established that Stout 'committed an intentional tort against' appellarfts through the conduct of its supervisory personnel and that no genuine issue

Darling v. Tribute Contracting & Consultants, L.L.C.

2025 Ohio 4624 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2025

However, the village asserted the Darlings could not establish negligence. … “‘[B]efore R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) will remove a political subdivision’s immunity, the plaintiff must establish: (1) the elements required to sustain a negligence action-duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages; and (2) that

State v. Marr

2020 Ohio 3898 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2020

drugs until Eades placed them under the cup holder just before officer Perry stopped the truck, an assumption the record does not necessarily compel, Marr could argue that his possession of the contraband was too brief to qualify … the outcome at trial clearly would have been otherwise.

State v. Bennington

2023 Ohio 644 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2023

According to the statute, a person is only immune from liability if his or her good faith report caused injury, death, or loss to person or property. … . {¶ 22} Having determined that Bennington did not qualify as a mandated reporter in this case because she was not acting her official or professional capacity and that she did not have immunity under R.C. 2151.421

Mueller v. N. Canton

2012 Ohio 3561 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2012

from Mueller's claim; and (3) the undisputed facts also establish that the City is statutorily immune from Mueller's claim. {¶4} The trial court agreed and granted the City's Motion to Dismiss. … Stark County, Case No. 2012-CA-82 11 {¶23} “The legislative intent in establishing the small claims court division was clearly not to require plaintiffs to file

Wilson v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

73 Ohio App. 3d 496 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 7, 1991

Sub judice, plaintiff has not established a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil action. … Thus, the disclosure of medical information may be protected by a qualified privilege predicated upon a “need to know” or “need for access” basis ( Knecht, supra; Levias v.

Glenn v. Columbus

2016 Ohio 7011 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2016

No. 16AP-15 5 {¶ 11} It is undisputed that the city, as a political subdivision performing a government function, qualifies for immunity … In Anderson, the Supreme Court noted that, "it is well established that the violation of a statute, ordinance, or departmental policy enacted for the safety of the public is not per se willful, wanton, or reckless conduct