Case law

State Ex Rel. Gelesh v. State Medical Board

172 Ohio App. 3d 365 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2007

On the other hand, the board contends that it, not the trial court, must determine the facts necessary to establish Dr. Gelesh’s entitlement to immunity. … Although it does not offer any specific argument regarding ambiguity in the term “professional disciplinary action,” the board clearly advocates that R.C. 2133.11 immunity does not extend to disciplinary adjudications by

Easterling v. Brogan

2012 Ohio 1852 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2012

The trial court in that action sustained Croswell’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the handbook clearly established that Easterling was an at-will employee, that the disciplinary procedures in the handbook created … Division (A)(6) grants political-subdivision employees qualified immunity: In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section * * *, the employee is immune from liability

Hamlin v. Bosse

2018 Ohio 2657 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 2018

Specifically, Bosse, as the trial court’s expert, was ordered by the magistrate to prepare four Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (“QDRO”) in order to equitably divide David’s retirement benefits from Delphi Corporation … Clearly, the issue of whether Bosse is entitled to absolute immunity as a court-appointed accountant is not settled in Ohio.

Kennedy v. Specht

119 N.E.3d 792 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2018

“However, ‘absolute immunity does not extend to a prosecutor engaged in essentially investigative or administrative functions’[;] * * * [w]hile performing these functions, he is entitled to only a qualified immunity.” … The record before us, however, does not establish that appellees acted with any malice or bad faith. No exception to the provision of prosecutorial immunity applies here.

DSS Servs., L.L.C. v. Eitel's Towing, L.L.C.

2019 Ohio 3158 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2019

Thus, where the face of the complaint does not clearly establish a political subdivision's immunity, a court must deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings. … Engagement in those activities, therefore, may qualify as providing fire services.

Campolieti v. City of Cleveland

184 Ohio App. 3d 419 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2009

. (¶ 4} Appellant had the highest seniority and was at least as equally qualified as the applicant selected. … The city’s discovery request was clearly overbroad in its scope; therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Vacha v. N. Ridgeville

2011 Ohio 2446 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 23, 2011

Instead, it argues that this Court should apply the more stringent standard for establishing an employer intentional tort set forth in R.C. 2745.01, because, since the trial court ruled on the summary judgment motions, … on the immunity provisions of R.C.

Wilhelms v. ProMedica Health Sys., Inc.

205 N.E.3d 1159 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2023

Wilhelms’ COVID-19 infection and his injuries, and the trial court’s causal finding based upon the limited evidence in the record was clearly erroneous. See e.g. Linkous v. Mayfield, 4th Dist. Scioto No. … and Kroger finding that the claimed losses clearly were alleged to have been caused by, arose out of, related to, or resulted from the administration of, or the use of the Moderna vaccine, a 15.

Leroy v. Allen Yurasek Merklin

162 Ohio App. 3d 155 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2005

The second issue involves appellees’ participation in the preparation of a will, which was allegedly drafted for the decedent in November 2001. {¶ 11} Attorneys in Ohio enjoy a qualified immunity from liability to a third … immunity set forth in Simon v.

Dover Chem. Corp. v. Dover

2022 Ohio 2307 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2022

can be revived because the political subdivision is entitled to a defense or qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A). … purpose, bad faith” qualified immunity provisions of R.C. 2744.03(A)(6).

Gureasko v. Bethesda Hospital

116 Ohio App. 3d 724 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1996

We thus hold that the hospital’s summary suspension procedure provided sufficient due process to qualify the hospital for immunity under HCQIA as well as under state law. … Frank (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 111 , 573 N.E.2d 609 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that this statute establishes a qualified privilege.

Potter v. City of Troy

78 Ohio App. 3d 372 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1992

The immunity granted by R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) is qualified. … We conclude that members of city council, Campbell, Jenkins, Haddad, Deeter, and Kelsey are provided with qualified immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.03.

Wilson v. Rose Metals Industries, Inc.

182 N.E.3d 542 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2021

The language in Daniels is clearly applicable to this case and establishes that Wilson was a Rose Metal employee for purposes of workers’ compensation. … In order to qualify for immunity under R.C. 4123.74, a customer of a staffing agency may pay the workers’ compensation premiums either directly or indirectly. Foran v.

McKee v. McCann

102 N.E.3d 38 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2017

We previously stated that Shamblin had qualified immunity on the false arrest claim, and that qualified immunity extends to a defamation claim premised on the same conduct. … any defense or immunity available at common law or established by the Revised Code.”

Miller v. Leesburg

87 Ohio App. 3d 171 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1993

This absolute immunity is subject only to the exceptions listed in R.C. 2744.02(B). As appellants correctly pointed out, R.C. 2744.02(B) incorporates R.C. 2744.03 and, thus, gives appellees qualified immunity. … It is also noted, however, that, in order to succeed under Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.Code, appellants must additionally show that a clearly established right was violated. Anderson v.

Akron v. J.B.

2019 Ohio 2203 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2019

In doing so, we have noted that the terms of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) are unambiguous: The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession … The statute provides for qualified and conditional immunity; it places the burden on an eligible and “qualified individual” seeking a grant of immunity to demonstrate that he or she has sought and obtained the required

Marusa v. Erie Ins. Co.

2011 Ohio 6276 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2011

To read the policy differently would elevate general language over the specific and undermine the well-established legal proposition that Ohio law presumes insurance coverage, so an exclusion to coverage must be clearly … If Erie wished to ride on the coattails of governmental immunity to deny UM coverage to its unsuspecting and oblivious customers, the law requires that it clearly do so.

Davis v. Diley Ridge Med. Ctr.

2025 Ohio 1940 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 29, 2025

Neer, 2016-Ohio-8374, ¶ 10 (“entitlement to statutory immunity is a separate question from the plaintiff’s ability to establish the elements of his or her claim”). … ESI is the only entity in this appeal that might qualify as a “mental health organization.”

Soler v. Cleveland Metro. School Dist.

2025 Ohio 2151 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2025

The court cannot conclude that the pleadings obviously or conclusively establish the affirmative defense of political subdivision immunity. … R.C. 2744.01(F) provides that a public school district qualifies as a political subdivision for purposes of R.C. Chapter 2744 immunity. Bush v. Cleveland Mun. School Dist., 2013-Ohio-5420, ¶ 9.

Eulrich v. Weaver Bros., Inc.

165 Ohio App. 3d 313 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2005

929.04 states: In a civil action for nuisances involving agricultural activities, it is a complete defense if: (A) The agricultural activities were conducted within an agricultural district; (B) Agricultural activities were established … Clearly, R.C. 929.04 provides an affirmative defense against nuisance actions to qualified agricultural districts.