Case law

Bell v. Cleveland

2013 Ohio 2093 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 23, 2013

Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977). {¶9} There is no dispute that the City qualifies as a political subdivision for purposes of establishing immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). … Therefore, sovereign immunity protection is warranted as a matter of law. {¶19} Accordingly, we find the trial court erred by denying the City summary judgment and that the City is entitled to immunity.

Blankenship v. Enright

67 Ohio App. 3d 303 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1990

However, this provision is applicable only after liability has been established as it acts as a defense providing: "The political subdivision is immune from liability if the action or failure to act by the employee involved … Thus, pursuant to R.C. 2744.01(C)(1)(a), this is clearly a "governmental" function. Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 2744.02, plaintiff, as a matter of law, does not have a claim for relief against defendant Franklin County.

Farra v. City of Dayton

62 Ohio App. 3d 487 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1989

may be asserted to establish nonliability: a * * * “(5) The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury, death, or loss to persons or property resulted from the exercise of judgment or discretion in determining … The phrase “any act or omission” clearly indicates a legislative intent to grant immunity to political subdivisions in the absence of express provision to the contrary. Burr is not determinative.

Estate of Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2019 Ohio 1794 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 9, 2019

sovereign immunity." … Specifically, DRC asserts the highlighted wording clearly empowers the legislative branch of government with discretion to take affirmative action imparting the authority to sue the state.

Hendrickson v. Haven Place, Inc.

2014 Ohio 3726 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2014

. {¶16} First, there is no dispute that the County is a political subdivision that qualifies for immunity under R.C. 2744.01(A). … and (12) the officers acted wantonly, recklessly, and with complete disregard for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. {¶29} The complaint, containing more facts than are probably required, established

Christian v. Dept. of Transportation, 08ap-651 (3-31-2009)

2009 Ohio 1544 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2009

It nonetheless concluded ODOT's subsequent "time and manner" decisions implementing the policy are themselves not entitled to immunity. … Lightle testified the Plattsburg Road bridge was "clearly in a rural area" because it neither fell within the corporate limits of any municipality or village nor displayed any urban characteristics such as land development

McNamara v. Marion Popcorn Festival

2012 Ohio 5578 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 2012

is established under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), the second tier of analysis is whether any of the five exceptions to immunity in subsection (B) apply. * * * Finally, under the third tier of analysis, immunity … Clearly that is not the case here. We find the other cases cited by the McNamaras are even more readily distinguishable than Crabtree or are unpersuasive to our holding.

Collias v. Redburn

2012 Ohio 2128 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 14, 2012

The trial court also granted the discovery sanctions pursuant to Civ.R. 37, noting that the history of the case clearly demonstrated that Collias had been given notice that dismissal was a possibility. … While Collias acknowledges that the WCAS qualifies as a political subdivision for purposes of establishing immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), he contends that this immunity is abrogated by R.C. 2744.02(B)(2), which renders

Peoples Rights Organization, Inc. v. Montgomery

142 Ohio App. 3d 443 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 2001

Qualified Immunity i. Generally The courts have recognized that state officials possess a qualified immunity defense when sued under Section 1983. Johnson v. … For purposes of qualified immunity, “clearly established” means that “ ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Douglas v. Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn.

152 N.E.3d 1245 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2020

Appellees further argue that appellant has failed to cite any case in support of the proposition that a rocket experiment, in which the rocket was built and constructed by the student herself (as well as other students), would qualify … (Douglas Depo. at 36.) {¶ 43} Based on this court's de novo review of the pleadings and evidentiary materials submitted on summary judgment, there is no evidence to establish appellees "created an unreasonable risk

Summers v. Slivinsky

141 Ohio App. 3d 82 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2001

Under the first tier, R.C. 2744.02(A) grants broad immunity to political subdivisions. If immunity is established under R.C. 2744.02(A), such immunity is not absolute, however. … Appellees insist that the cheerleading practice was a governmental function and that no further analysis is necessary to establish immunity. We find appellees’ argument persuasive.

Conley v. Wapakoneta City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

195 N.E.3d 1061 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2022

. {¶26} The second tier of the analysis involves establishing if any of the five exceptions to immunity that are listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) lift the sovereign immunity and expose the political subdivision to liability … Thus, Wapakoneta City School District is a political subdivision generally entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). {¶30} With immunity generally established and the first tier of the immunity analysis

Davis v. Brown Local Schools

2019 Ohio 246 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2019

Neer, 149 Ohio St.3d 349, 2016-Ohio-8374, 75 N.E.2d 161, we do not consider Rusnak’s testimony at this juncture as McLaughlin’s “entitlement to statutory immunity is a separate question from the plaintiff’s ability to establish … The Act establishes statutory tort immunity in specific cases in which political subdivisions, including cities and townships, may otherwise be sued in negligence. Haynes v.

Monroe v. Troy Strawberry Festival, Inc.

210 N.E.3d 9 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2023

Id. at ¶ 9. {¶ 10} The parties and the trial court acknowledge that Troy is immune from liability unless the Monroes can establish an exception to Troy’s statutory immunity. … The function of maintaining or repairing a sidewalk or street is clearly defined by statute as a governmental function. R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(e).

Gabel v. Miami East School Board

169 Ohio App. 3d 609 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2006

In support, it argued that it was immune from tort liability. … The Gabels have not disputed that the school board qualifies as a "political subdivision” under R.C. Chapter 2744.

Brown Cty. Bd. of Health v. Raichyk

2013 Ohio 1727 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2013

manifest weight analysis, "the reviewing court weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly … An individual suing a political subdivision "must first establish an exception to immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)." Id. "In other words, 'R.C. 2744.03 is the third tier.

Gharibshahi v. State

2014 Ohio 1529 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2014

The evidence established Dr. Artman, an OB/GYN, held a faculty position at The Ohio State University ("OSU") since 1991. … Artman's options to lecture and conduct research do not qualify as sovereign functions sufficient to elevate her faculty appointment to a position with the state. Accordingly, we find Dr.

Ritzler v. Arcadia

2020 Ohio 4416 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2020

The Ritzlers again emphasized that sovereign immunity was not proper in a breach of contract claim. … Arcadia’s attorney challenged the Ritzlers’ attorney on the fact that some of the attorney’s fees clearly predated the filing of the breach of contract action.

Doolittle v. Shook, 06 Ma 65 (3-23-2007)

2007 Ohio 1575 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2007

"Under the first tier, R.C. 2744.02 (A) grants broad immunity to political subdivisions. If immunity is established under R.C. 2744.02 (A), such immunity is not absolute, however. … This code section does not even clearly require any mandatory duty of the Board of Health, let alone impose civil liability for failure to perform a duty.

Bieber v. Perry Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

2020 Ohio 3996 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 2020

R.C. 2744.02 establishes governmental immunity for political subdivisions and their employees: “ * * * [a] political subdivision is not liable in damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property … The third tier is to determine whether the political subdivision is entitled to a defense or qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A). Vasquez-Comer v. City of Toledo, 6th Dist. Lucas No.