Case law

Adams v. Township of Champion, Ohio

68 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 1999

Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions as long as the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In order to assert a violation of a “clearly established” right and defeat a qualified immunity defense “[t]he contours of a right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Conrad v. City of Berea

243 F. Supp. 3d 896 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 2017

whether qualified immunity applies, the court looks to whether the plaintiff (1) presents facts that make out a violation of “a clearly established constitutional right,” and if so, (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly … But, had Plaintiffs succeeded, individual defendants would have otherwise been entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs failed to show that Defendants violated any clearly established right. IV.

Cline v. City of Mansfield

745 F. Supp. 2d 773 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2010

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court established a two-prong test for evaluating the claim of qualified immunity. … from the analysis of qualified immunity.

Beckett v. Ford

613 F. Supp. 2d 970 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 11, 2009

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

McCrea v. Zieba

955 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 19, 1996

Moreover, Judge Zieba argues that he was protected from personal liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in 1991 and 1993 that a Court Administrator could not be discharged … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

West v. Duncan

179 F. Supp. 2d 794 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 14, 2001

State actors lose this immunity when they violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. … Harlow, 457 *802 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727 (holding that qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Golembiewski v. Logie

852 F. Supp. 2d 908 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Jones v. City of Brunswick

704 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2010

Qualified Immunity As previously discussed, individual officials will not be held liable under § 1983 unless those officials violated the plaintiffs “clearly established constitutional rights” in a way that was “objectively … Masters, 872 F.2d at 1255 (citations, emphasis, and quotation marks omitted). 21 To prevail over a claim of qualified immunity, however, it is not enough that a plaintiff show that a right was clearly established.

Johnson v. Collins

564 F. Supp. 2d 759 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2008

Defendant is not entitled to immunity or qualified immunity because Plaintiff may be able to show a violation of federal law. … Second, Plaintiff can show that this right was “clearly established.” Dickerson, 101 F.3d at 1158 .

McKissic v. Miller

37 F. Supp. 3d 907 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 1, 2014

A defendant cannot be held responsible for violating a “clearly established right” unless the parameters of the established right are “sufficiently definite that any reasonable officer in the defendant’s shoes would have … This Court has also failed to find any cases that would support qualified immunity under these alleged facts during its independent review.

Walsh v. Erie County Department of Job & Family Services

240 F. Supp. 2d 731 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 22, 2003

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that, even if they committed one or more federal constitutional violations, they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … were not clearly established is unavailing.

Risner v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

577 F. Supp. 2d 953 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 20, 2008

On November 20, 2006, Defendants filed their Answer, in which they raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity for Haines and Hageman. (Doc. 5.) … "In the five years since it was decided, Union Gas has proved to be a solitary departure from established law.” Id. at 66 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 .

Hadad v. Croucher

970 F. Supp. 1227 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 28, 1997

Defendants’ rebuttal is tied in this situation to their qualified immunity defense. … The same qualified immunity protects the individual Village Council members.

Tatton v. City of Cuyahoga Falls

116 F. Supp. 2d 928 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 12, 2000

Qualified immunity shields Officer Kenepp from liability arising from each of the alleged constitutional violations. … Government officials performing discretionary functions generally have qualified immunity so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Garrett v. Fisher Titus Hospital

318 F. Supp. 2d 562 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 24, 2004

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials *570 performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, the “plaintiff is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Dominque v.

Rush v. City of Mansfield

771 F. Supp. 2d 827 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 11, 2011

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court established a two-prong test for evaluating the claim of qualified immunity. … analysis of qualified immunity.

Scarso v. Cuyahoga County Department of Human Services

747 F. Supp. 381 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 1989

Similarly, in a case involving qualified immunity, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that where a plaintiff fails to allege sufficient allegations to withstand the qualified immunity defense, it is proper to grant a … Clearly, those defendants are entitled to the protection afforded Judge Ruben under the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity.

Gill v. Kovach

729 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 2010

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil suits if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 387 (6th Cir.1994), the Court cannot determine, as a matter of law, that qualified immunity does not attach.

Jacobs v. Village of Ottawa Hills

111 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 25, 2000

Qualified Immunity Officers Miller and Knallay assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that they violated no clearly established constitutional right of which they were or reasonably should have been … Accordingly, these officers, also like the officer in that case, cannot claim qualified immunity “because [they] failed to follow clearly established constitutional law of which they should have known.” 2.

Burnell v. Williams

997 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 6, 1998

Alternatively, Defendants Morvai and Coleman say they enjoy qualified immunity. In Monell v. … V Alternatively, Defendants Morvai and Coleman say they enjoy qualified immunity.