Case law

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.’”

Williams v. Columbus Board of Education

82 Ohio App. 3d 18 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 1992

Upon establishing liability under one of these five exceptions to the general rule of immunity, a political subdivision may still avoid liability by availing itself of a defense contained in R.C. 2744.03. … Further, the alleged injury clearly occurred in the school building, which is a building “used in connection with the performance of a governmental function” within the meaning of R.C. 2744.02(B)(4).

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

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

Willis v. Commodity Specialists Co.

158 Ohio App. 3d 444 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2004

Thus, once immunity is established under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1), the second tier of analysis is whether any of the five exceptions to immunity listed in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply. Cater, 83 Ohio St.3d at 28 , 697 N.E.2d 610 . … However, even if the grain spill could be construed as a nuisance, immunity would clearly be reinstated to the city of Marysville under R.C. 2744.03.

GTE Wireless of Midwest Inc. v. Anderson Township

134 Ohio App. 3d 352 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1999

First, the language of R.C. 5501.311 does not establish appellees’ entitlement to an exemption from local zoning. … Based upon these principles, the Brownfield court held that the state failed to establish its entitlement to immunity because the state made no effort to comply with the Akron zoning ordinance, which would have otherwise

Leasure v. Adena Local School Dist.

2012 Ohio 3071 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2012

Chapter 2744 establishes a three-step analysis for determining whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 113 Ohio St.3d 266, 270, 2007-Ohio-1946, 865 N.E.2d 9, ¶14. … We held that the school’s “initial decision * * * to purchase and install the irrigation system clearly involved the exercise of protected judgment or discretion, for which [the ROSS, 11CA3249

Morgan v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.

2025 Ohio 1655 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 8, 2025

And if a plaintiff establishes that a bus driver was negligent in operating the bus doors, then the exception to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B)(1) applies. … Thus, an abuse of discretion also occurs when a court “‘applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.’” Thomas v.

Celebrezze v. Dayton Newspapers, Inc.

41 Ohio App. 3d 343 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1988

The Supreme Court’s language in Yeager is couched in the qualifying terms emphasized above. … However, defendants’ motives are clearly established in their deposition. In the dispute between Chief Justice Frank D. Celebrezze and the Ohio State Bar Association, defendants took the side of the bar association.

Ruth v. Jennings

136 Ohio App. 3d 370 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1999

On January 5, 1999, appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that they had qualified immunity from suit pursuant to R.C. 2744.03(6). … may be asserted to establish nonliability: a * * * “(6) * * *, the employee is immune from liability unless one of the following applies: “(a) The employee’s acts or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of the employee

Hortman v. City of Miamisburg

161 Ohio App. 3d 559 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2005

It should be noted that the project *563 design clearly indicated the public right of way and scope of the work area, and that some of those trees, including the elm, were located in that area and subject for removal. … 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.

Walters v. City of Columbus, 07ap-917 (8-21-2008)

2008 Ohio 4258 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2008

If an exception does apply, we proceed to the third inquiry: whether the township can still establish immunity by demonstrating another statutory defense. R.C. 2744.03 . * * * Howard v. Miami Twp. … to immunity.

Collier-Hammond v. State

154 N.E.3d 364 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2020

In the state’s motion, the state argued that, [h]istorically, sovereign immunity has protected the State against claims of wrongful imprisonment. … credible evidence sustains the issue which is to be established before them.

State ex rel. Attorney General v. Hamm

2026 Ohio 2304 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2026

Second, she maintains that the trial court should have entered a directed verdict in her favor based on immunity and should have allowed Millard to present an immunity defense. … But these facts were established in the special audit.

Rieger v. Marsh

2011 Ohio 6808 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2011

Even assuming these allegations removes [sic] Long’s immunity, R.C. 2744.03(A)(7) restores his immunity. … available at common law or established by the revised code.’ {¶ 33} “For these reasons, the court finds that the claims against Long should be dismissed as well.”

Wolfe v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2025 Ohio 4560 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2025

It determined Wolfe failed “to provide any controverting evidence to . . . establish a genuine issue of material fact.” (Decision at 8.) … Under the doctrine of discretionary immunity, ODRC is typically immune from tort liability related to decisions involving policies and procedures. Evans v.

Talik v. Federal Marine Terminals, Inc.

172 Ohio App. 3d 704 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2006

The Seventh District held that the negligence claim could go forward only if the employee established that the employer had failed to secure the necessary workers’ compensation coverage. … BP Chem., Inc. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 298 , 707 N.E.2d 1107 (“Because R.C. 2745.01 imposes excessive standards (deliberate and intentional act), with a heightened burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence), it is clearly

Estate of Lewis v. Anderson

2026 Ohio 2096 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2026

invoking an exception to immunity. … immunity.

Ott v. Borchardt

127 Ohio App. 3d 152 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1998

Next, appellant complains that the statute violates the “Ohio constitutional provision against conferring special privileges and immunities,” by conferring a special privilege or immunity on the automobile casualty insurance … Clearly, the legislature, having granted automobile insurers the right to limit certain coverages, is not prohibited from revoking (or altering or repealing) that same right in the future.

Williams v. Shawnee Twp.

2023 Ohio 251 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2023

“‘Accordingly, the burden of proof is on the political subdivision to -9- Case No. 1-22-34 establish general immunity.’” Id., quoting Green at ¶ 18. … “R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) establishes the framework of analysis for determining whether a political subdivision employee is entitled to immunity.” Holmes v. Cuyahoga Community College, 8th Dist.