Case law

Reed v. Multi-Cty. Juvenile Sys.

2010 Ohio 6602 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2010

To overcome the appellants' qualified-immunity defense, Reed must establish that the appellants' conduct violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. Hope v. … Leonard (C.A.8, 2007), 477 F.3d 544, where qualified immunity was denied via summary judgment.

Szuch v. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co.

2016 Ohio 620 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2016

Nuisance may be further divided into “absolute” and “qualified.” … . {¶ 54} Alternatively, appellants argue that the operation of the range above the noise regulations is evidence of negligence sufficient to establish a qualified nuisance.

Fallang v. Cormier

63 Ohio App. 3d 450 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1989

Clearly, under the rule enunciated in Willitzer , had appellee’s statements been made during the deposition, appellee would have been entitled to the privilege and absolute immunity. … In conclusion, appellee’s statements were entitled to immunity under both absolute and qualified privileges.

Donovan v. Kirtland Country Club

2026 Ohio 1327 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2026

Statutory Immunity for Shooting Range Owners and Operators {¶20} In their fourth assignment of error, the Donovans argue that statutory immunity for nuisance claims should not apply because “the standard for immunity … Having determined that KCC is entitled to statutory immunity from nuisance claims under R.C. 1533.85(A)(1) and that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to negligence or qualified nuisance, the Donovans’ first and

Emanuel's, L.L.C. v. Restore Marietta, Inc.

206 N.E.3d 116 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2023

The court found that the facts in the complaint were “insufficient to establish any of the exceptions to immunity.” The court also found the City immune from the Valentine Act claim under the state action doctrine. … . {¶29} Emanuel’s also suggests that the City qualifies as a “person” who can violate the Valentine Act, asserting that the United States Supreme Court “has established that a municipal corporation can also be a

Granato v. Davis

2014 Ohio 5572 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2014

However, the trial court did err in denying Shott qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. 1983. … This right is known in law as qualified immunity.” Cook at 85.

Fagan v. Shelby

2025 Ohio 2648 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2025

as long as the property qualifies as recreational property, and the user qualifies as a recreational user. … Chapter 2744.03(A)(7) expressly and broadly encompasses "any" defense or immunity available at common law or established in the Revised Code. Thus, the Court finds that R.C.

Decuzzi v. City of Westlake

191 Ohio App. 3d 816 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2010

absolute, qualified, etc.) and identify what facts establish the defense.” {¶ 5} In response, the city objected on the basis that the requests were vague and overbroad, and furthermore that Civ.R. 26 “does not allow for … defense by its type (i.e., absolute, qualified, etc.) and identify what facts establish the defense” is beyond the scope of Civ.R. 26.

Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati

169 Ohio App. 3d 627 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2006

to go to trial.” 53 To this end, a ruling on the issue of qualified immunity should be made as early as possible in the proceedings, before the commencement of discovery. 54 “[A] quick resolution of a qualified immunity … claim is essential.” 55 {¶ 82} “Where a defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must plead facts which, if true, describe a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right

State Ex Rel. Connors v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation

8 Ohio App. 3d 44 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1982

In order to qualify to bid on ODOT projects, a contractor, prior to bidding, must qualify both financially and also as to the equal employment opportunity regulations. … The defendants claim that declaratory and injunctive relief are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In American Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v.

Thompson v. Germantown Cemetery

188 Ohio App. 3d 132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2010

In the first tier, the court determines whether the defendant is a political subdivision entitled to qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). … And in the third tier, the court determines whether the political subdivision can re-establish its immunity using one of the defenses in R.C. 2744.03.

Asher Investments, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati

122 Ohio App. 3d 126 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 1997

immunity where evidence supports Asher’s contention that she violated clearly established constitutional rights, which a reasonable person would have known. … The Sixth Circuit has established a heightened pleading standard for Section 1983 actions against individual government officials where qualified immunity has been asserted as a defense. Veney v.

Friga v. East Cleveland, 88262 (4-12-2007)

2007 Ohio 1716 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2007

Defendant-appellees were immune from suit under R.C. 2744.03 as a matter of law, and appellants failed to establish any of the exceptions to statutory immunity. … B {¶ 14} The police officers have a qualified immunity as employees of a political subdivision.

Samadder v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.

2024 Ohio 6104 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2024

Samadder argues that the Court of Claims erred in finding OSUWMC sustained its burden of proof to establish qualified civil immunity under Am.Sub.H.B. No. 606. Dr. Samadder argues that Am.Sub.H.B. … No. 606(B)(1) establishes qualified civil immunity, but Am.Sub.H.B.

Presutto v. Hull

2018 Ohio 3103 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2018

performing such functions, a prosecutor is entitled to only a qualified immunity. … Once again, the complaint only alleges facts involving their scope as quasi-judicial officers, and once absolute immunity has been established, it cannot be defeated by application of the malicious purpose/bad faith qualified

Hayes v. Columbus

2014 Ohio 2076 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 2014

Qualified immunity thus applies only to federal claims. See Bodager v. Campbell, 4th Dist. No. 12CA828, 2013-Ohio-4650, ¶ 30; Roe v. … Chapter 2744, which applies to state law claims, and the federal doctrine of qualified immunity, which applies solely to federal claims").

Moore v. Cleveland

2014 Ohio 1426 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2014

. {¶19} If a court finds that a prosecutor’s actions are not covered by absolute immunity, then the prosecutor may be entitled to qualified immunity. … Once absolute immunity has been established under R.C. 2744.03(A)(7), it cannot be defeated by application of the “malicious purpose, bad faith” qualified immunity provisions of R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). Jopek v.

Stipanovich v. Applin

74 Ohio App. 3d 506 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1991

This is clearly less than nine months later as the appellant represents in her brief. The record further reflects that the appellee asserted in its answer, as its ninth affirmative defense, immunity pursuant to R.C. … R.C. 2744.02 classifies functions of political subdivisions in order to establish the types of situations where liability attaches.

State v. Brown

114 N.E.3d 228 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2018

Appellee contended that he “clearly had some type of plan formed once he re-establishe[d his] relationship” with PCRC. … The amendment added R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b), which grants immunity to “a qualified individual.” See R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(f) (describing R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) as granting immunity).

Scott v. City of Columbus Department of Public Utilities

192 Ohio App. 3d 465 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2011

Thus, once immunity is established, it becomes necessary to determine whether any of the stated exceptions apply. Colbert at ¶ 8. … No. 07CA0009-M, 2008-Ohio-3214 , 2008 WL 2582990 . {¶ 9} The parties agree that absent an applicable exception under R.C. 2744.02(B), the city qualifies for the blanket grant of immunity provided by R.C. 2744.02(A)(1).