Case law

Fleming v. Ashtabula Area City School Bd., 2006-A-0030 (4-18-2008)

2008 Ohio 1892 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2008

If the nonmoving party fails to do so, summary judgment, if appropriate shall be entered against the nonmoving party based on the principles that have been firmly established in Ohio for quite some time in Misteff v. … (Emphasis added.) {¶ 35} Next, we will address whether there is sufficient evidence in the record which, if believed, establishes that the alleged torts arose out of the employment relationship.

Bonace v. Springfield Township

179 Ohio App. 3d 736 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2008

Although nuisance no longer provides an exception to immunity, after the statutory amendment, the immunity exception only got harder for the plaintiff to establish. … Clearly, under the new definition of public road, ditches and berms are not encompassed in the immunity exception in R.C. 2744.02(B)(3).

Miller v. State

2014 Ohio 3738 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2014

in performing his or her job, we would be vastly expanding the scope of the discretionary immunity doctrine while simultaneously limiting the scope of the state's waiver of sovereign immunity from liability as established … However, we fail to see why the determination that 2 inch deep, 12 inch long, and 8 inch wide potholes should be filled qualifies as a discretionary decision entitled to immunity under the Reynolds standard. {¶ 38}

Bruce v. Village of Ontario, Unpublished Decision (11-24-1998)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 1998

Governmental officials performing discretionary acts are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless their conduct is objectively unreasonable as measured by reference to clearly established law, Davis v. … Once a defendant raises the issue of qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the burden of showing the defendant violated clearly established law, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association v.

Brown v. Christianson

2019 Ohio 2937 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2019

In Turner, the Ohio Supreme Court clearly indicated that the defendant—the Central Local School District—could have raised the defense of political subdivision immunity by seeking “leave to amend its answer to include the … because Brown could prove no set of facts establishing that Christianson was divested of immunity pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b). 3 See Dismissal Entry 8-10.

McConnell v. Dudley

106 N.E.3d 180 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2018

Appellants are not prejudiced here, however, as Coitsville Township was properly named as a party in the complaint and the Township is clearly the correct legal entity to be sued in this case. See Fields v. … R.C. 2744.03(A)(5). {¶21} Appellants correctly state that there is no dispute that they qualify for immunity under the first tier of the analysis.

Price v. Austintown Local School District Board of Education

178 Ohio App. 3d 256 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2008

The first tier determines whether the defendant falls within the terms of the general immunity established by R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). … The fifth exception to immunity involves liability imposed on a political subdivision by a specific statute and this clearly does not apply in the instant case.

Kelbley v. Hurley

94 Ohio App. 3d 409 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1994

“Common-law damages are clearly unavailable under R.C. 4123.741 for injuries negligently inflicted by a co-employee in the course of employment.” Jones v. VIP Dev. … The court concluded that once the fellow-employee immunity was established, any subsequent uninsured motorist claim filed by Webb was precluded because Webb was not legally entitled to a recovery from the tortfeasor.

Cleveland v. State

2012 Ohio 3572 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2012

immunity based upon the facial validity of CCO 677A. … State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149, 2002-Ohio-2005, 766 N.E.2d 963, the state argued that R.C. 4921.30 does not simply limit the legislative power of cities, but is part case were entitled to qualified immunity because it was unclear

Reynolds v. Hamilton Cty. Dev. Disabilities Servs.

233 N.E.3d 1161 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2024

But that doesn’t mean that any individual who works for a certified service provider qualifies as an employee. … Reynolds has not met the “rigorous standard” to establish that the exceptions in R.C. 2744.03(6) apply.

Burkes v. Stidham

107 Ohio App. 3d 363 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1995

A qualified privilege is applied to situations of intermediate importance. The immunity is conditioned upon publication in a reasonable manner and for a proper purpose. … Appellants argue that Adrine failed to establish a defense of qualified privilege.

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

158 N.E.3d 906 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2020

“qualifying contracts.” … The phrase “qualifying contracts” was not added to R.C. 5705.412 until an amendment in 2000.

Morway v. Durkin

181 Ohio App. 3d 195 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 2009

The court noted that “the Ohio legislature clearly provided for waiver of federal causes of action, as well as causes of action based upon state law.” … Harmony (C.A.6, 1995), 65 F.3d 1314, 1318 (R.C. 2743.02(A)(1) clearly provides for waiver of federal causes of action). *203 {¶ 38} In sum, by taking the state’s offer of waiver of sovereign immunity and suing in the Court

Bodager v. Campbell

2013 Ohio 4650 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2013

Consequently, we will not consider the belatedly raised assault claim. {¶ 30} With regard to his battery claim, Bodager contends that, if Anderson and Campbell are not entitled to qualified immunity from liability … We need not decide any immunity questions because the premise of Bodager's argument is wrong. Immunity from state law claims turns not on the federal qualified immunity doctrine, but on R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). Loggins v.

Zidron v. Metts

2017 Ohio 1118 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2017

Zidron argues that her testimony was sufficient to establish that Dr. Fisher was present for Bradley's appointment. … Mullen was not immune." Id.

Gray v. Allison Division, General Motors Corp.

52 Ohio App. 2d 348 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 1977

A qualified privilege, has been applied to situations of intermediate importance, with immunity conditioned upon publication in a reason-, able manner and for a proper purpose. … While protected by a qualified privilege, defamatory statements, will impose liability only by establishing either that the defamation was published to someone not, within the scope of-the privilege, or if the defamation

Gipson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

2024 Ohio 227 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2024

As explained below, we disagree. 1 Chapter 5149 establishes the OAPA and grants its authority to administer R.C. … The record clearly shows the motion to dismiss filed by OAPA was made pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted), and the record is equally clear the proper standard was applied

State v. Trocodaro

36 Ohio App. 2d 1 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 22, 1973

The facts upon which this conviction was based clearly evidence one of the most cold blooded acts of murder that the writer of this decision has had the unpleasant duty to review upon appeal. … It would thus appear that the general pattern has been established. It would also appear, therefore, that in order for an *12 agreement offering’ immunity to be binding upon the state, court approval should be procured.

Moore v. ThorWorks Indus., Inc.

243 N.E.3d 655 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2024

Appellees are clearly raising alternative grounds in support of the October 19, 2022 judgment. 32.  {¶ 79} The concurring opinion asserts, however, that if this court were to accept appellees’ immunity argument … to prove recklessness must be established.

Boucher v. Cleveland

2023 Ohio 1818 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2023

On June 15, 2022, the city filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it “is entitled to political subdivision immunity and the record is devoid of evidence to establish that any of the exceptions to immunity apply … Before R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) will remove a political subdivision’s immunity, a plaintiff must establish the elements required to sustain a negligence action. Puffenberger v. Cleveland, 8th Dist.