Case law

Fabian v. Kettering

2024 Ohio 360 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2024

It establishes a three-step analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability, starting with a broad rule that a political subdivision is generally not liable in damages.” … Because no exceptions to immunity applied, Kettering was immune from liability. {¶ 21} Regarding Tillotson, Fabian made no allegations that his acts or omissions were outside the scope of his employment or that

Sherwin Williams Co. v. Dayton Freight Lines

161 Ohio App. 3d 444 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 27, 2005

Once immunity is established, the second tier of the analysis is whether one of the exceptions to immunity set forth at R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) through (5) applies. … However, the court did not address R.C. 2744.03 because it found that none of the exceptions to immunity under R.C. 2744.02 had been established.

Kanode v. Columbus

2025 Ohio 5533 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2025

Clearly, the trial court engaged in the causal-relationship analysis articulated in Sampson and Vacha. … Based on the foregoing, the trial court correctly determined that Wozniak was entitled to immunity regarding appellants’ claims. {¶ 43} Even if appellants could establish that appellees were not entitled to immunity

Frazier v. City of Kent, 2006-P-0082 (10-26-2007)

2007 Ohio 5782 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2007

There is simply nothing in the record before us to establish such a claim. {¶ 47} Appellants' second issue is without merit. {¶ 48} In their third issue, appellants contend that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not … R.C. 2744.02 (A)(1). * * * *Page 14 {¶ 52} "The second tier in an immunity analysis focuses on the exceptions to immunity located in R.C. 2744.02 (B). * * * {¶ 53} "Finally, in the third tier of the analysis, immunity may

State v. Davis

96 N.E.3d 1280 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 2017

. ----, 135 S.Ct. 348 , 190 L.Ed.2d 311 (2014) involved a question of an officer's qualified immunity from a homeowner's § 1983 action. … The women claimed to fear they would be raped or killed by Appellant, but were clearly no longer in danger upon the arrival of law enforcement. {¶ 35} While the women stated they found a purse containing a gun inside the

Malone v. Lowry, 06-Ca-101 (10-19-2007)

2007 Ohio 5665 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 2007

For this reason, Malone fails to establish that the petition was filed in an attempt to accomplish an ulterior motive for which it was not designed. … may be published without civil liability.* * * {¶ 22} "Such privileged occasions have by long judicial history been divided into two classes — occasions absolutely privileged and those upon which the privilege is only a qualified

Holman v. Licking County

107 Ohio App. 3d 106 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1995

The trial court committed prejudicial error by charging the jury on the issue of Licking County’s immunity and by failing to follow the clearly applicable and controlling precedents rendered by this and other courts on the … In response to this, appellee claims immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(A)(3) and (5).

Rogers v. City of Dayton, 21593, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2007)

2007 Ohio 673 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2007

Therefore, Moreo arguably is immune from liability to Rogers. Unlike its employee, however, the City of Dayton does not have immunity from Rogers's action. See R.C. 2744.02 (B) (1 ), 2744.03(A). … set forth in R.C. 2744.05 (B) that establishes the result to which Judge Painter took offense in Safe Auto Ins.

State ex rel. Slacas v. KCI Technologies, Inc.

2022 Ohio 4573 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2022

This intent was clearly stated and shown in the MFS report but did not occur in the design and construction of the new Subdivision storm drainage system. … . {¶27} Thus, it is established that the Portage County defendants are entitled to immunity except to the extent that they may be liable for failing to maintain, i.e., keep free of obstruction and deterioration,

Dennewitz v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.

2025 Ohio 782 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2025

Coverage under this policy; (3) the insuring company denies coverage or is or becomes insolvent; (4) the owner or operator has diplomatic immunity … ROSS, 24CA13 23 {¶42} Appellant additionally asserts that R.C. 3937.18(C) establishes that she is an “insured” under appellee’s policy.

James v. Ohio Edison Co.

2025 Ohio 1046 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2025

, he will have ample time to prepare for trial on the immunity issue. … As noted above, both the Supreme Court of Ohio and this Court have previously established that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend when an untimely motion offers no reason to justify

Booth v. Lazzara

2026 Ohio 225 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2026

In other words, a treating psychiatrist merely alleging "good faith" is generally insufficient to establish the affirmative defense of immunity; good faith must be sufficiently demonstrated by all the surrounding circumstances … This is established when considering the depositions and records submitted by Brandi combined with Dr.

Krueck v. Youngstown State Univ.

2019 Ohio 3219 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2019

Columbiana No. 12 CO 49, 2014-Ohio-5638, ¶ 13 (interpreting the tort-immunity statute and holding that “a political subdivision is immune from liability in a civil action alleging a violation of the [CSPA.]”). … by the waiver of immunity contained in section 2743.02 of the Revised Code.’”

Mayer v. Bodnar

204 N.E.3d 731 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2022

R.C. 2744.02(A)(1) establishes governmental immunity for political Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAE 05 0041 21 subdivisions and their employees: “For purposes of this chapter … Id. {¶56} If the political subdivision is liable under the second tier, the third tier of the analysis determines whether immunity can be revived because the political subdivision is entitled to a defense or qualified

Evans v. Shawnee Twp. Bd. of Trustees

2021 Ohio 1003 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2021

Importantly, the General Assembly clearly and unambiguously did not intend for R.C. 2921.42(A)(1) to recognize a wrongful-discharge tort in employment law. … “R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) establishes the framework of analysis for determining whether a political subdivision employee is entitled to immunity.” Id. at ¶ 38.

In re B.W.

103 N.E.3d 266 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2017

In other words, if J.J.’s statement is part of the equation, probable cause was clearly established. {¶34} However, it appears the juvenile court refused to consider any evidence about J.J. speaking to the detective … Similarly, even in a trial where the confrontation clause clearly applies to out-of-court testimonial statements, the confrontation clause “does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing

Kearns v. Meigs Cty. Emergency Med. Servs.

2017 Ohio 1354 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2017

established no passing zone. … R.C. 2744.03(A) prescribes defenses or immunities that an employee of a political subdivision may assert to establish nonliability in a civil action for damages allegedly caused by an act or omission in connection with

Morway v. Durkin, 07-Ma-189 (2-23-2009)

2009 Ohio 932 · 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). {¶ 38} In sum, by taking the state's offer of waiver of sovereign immunity and suing in the Court of

Blackmon v. Akron School Dist.

234 N.E.3d 1230 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2024

King, 147 Ohio St.3d 74, 2016-Ohio-2770, ¶ 13. {¶8} R.C. 2744.03(A) sets forth defenses or immunities that may be asserted to establish non-liability in a civil action brought against a political subdivision … Upon our independent review of the pleadings, we determine that Blackmon’s amended complaint satisfies the requirements of Civ.R. 8(A) and does not clearly illustrate that Blackmon can prove no set of facts that would entitle

Redd v. Springfield Township School

91 Ohio App. 3d 88 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1993

The trial court found that the school was immune from liability based on Ohio’s sovereign immunity statute. We affirm. … The burden of establishing the appropriateness of summary judgment is on the moving party. Hamlin v. McAlpin Co. (1964), 175 Ohio St. 517 , 26 O.O.2d 206 , *91 196 N.E.2d 781 , paragraph two of the syllabus; Mitseff v.