Case law

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.

Hollenbaugh Ex Rel. Estate of Hollenbaugh v. Maurer

397 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 10, 2005

Nevertheless, state actors lose this immunity when they violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Harlow, 457 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 person

Feathers v. Aey

196 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 27, 2002

State actors lose this immunity when they violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (holding that *537 qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Ghaster v. City of Rocky River

913 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2012

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions where their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would … The two-part test for qualified immunity asks (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the

Amvets Post 711 v. Rutter

863 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2012

Qualified immunity is a longstanding doctrine which “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … My analysis of qualified immunity is two-pronged: first, I must decide whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and second, whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of

MacE v. City of Akron

989 F. Supp. 949 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 16, 1998

Sammon is protected against judgment on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity when her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established' rules and the information then possessed by the official. Id. (citing Anderson v.

D'AGASTINO v. City of Warren

175 F. Supp. 2d 967 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2001

Nevertheless, state actors lose this immunity when they violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. … Harlow, 457 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 person

Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

95 F. Supp. 2d 723 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 20, 2000

Officials are entitled to *739 qualified immunity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. … If the jury imposes supervisory liability, no defendant would be protected by qualified immunity for the same reasons that deprive Trooper Kiefer of his claim of qualified immunity. 11 .

Kolb v. Ohio, Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, Cleveland Developmental Center

721 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 10, 1989

Officials of state governmental agencies clearly fulfill this requirement and qualify as state actors for the purposes of the statute. … However, though they are not entitled to the absolute immunity of the *898 Eleventh Amendment, certain state officials are entitled to qualified or good-faith immunity. 8 Thus, one court observed that a suit “under section

McCartney v. Barg

643 F. Supp. 1181 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 3, 1986

First, the Supreme Court’s decision in Youngberg which clearly established the rights at issue herein was published on June 18, 1982. … Since the law giving rise to the rights at issue here was clearly established when some or all of the operative events occurred herein, and the complaint alleges violations of these rights, the good faith immunity defense

Ruble v. Escola

898 F. Supp. 2d 956 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2012

For the reasons that follow, the Court denies in part Defendant England’s motion for qualified immunity and state immunity. … The parties addressed qualified immunity issues in their briefings. ECF No. 38 at 11; 42 at 11; 44 at 17-18. .

Schmersal v. Major

753 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 30, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue, independent of whether Plaintiffs speech was protected by the First Amendment, that Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in terminating Plaintiff. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), held "if the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate."

Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc.

154 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 1, 2001

In Count III, Plaintiffs allege that even if Ohio Rev.Code §§ 5709.62(C)(1) & 5709.631 are constitutional, DaimlerChrysler was not qualified for the property tax exemption. … Clearly, the property tax exemption at issue is not a tariff, since it applies only to property owned in the State of Ohio.

Horen v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF TOLEDO CITY SCH. DIST.

594 F. Supp. 2d 833 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 23, 2009

Government actors are entitled to qualified immunity unless they act unreasonably and violate a “clearly established” constitutional right. Saucier v. … City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 302 (6th Cir.2005) (finding an officer to be entitled to qualified immunity unless: 1) a “constitutional violation” occurred; 2) “the violation involved a clearly established constitutional

Lipman v. Budish

383 F. Supp. 3d 764 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 23, 2019

, was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. … The case is clearly distinguishable. In Stemler , the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's substantive due process claim because they owed a duty to protect her as she was in their custody.

Huffman v. Village of Newburgh Heights

120 F. Supp. 3d 691 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 2015

A defendant may assert “the defense of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Patrolman Hoover is accordingly entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Pirolozzi v. Stanbro

556 F. Supp. 2d 783 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 28, 2008

Nevertheless, state actors lose this immunity when they violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.

Williams v. Richland County Children Services

861 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2011

Parker, in his individual capacity on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity claims are analyzed under the following three-part test: (1) whether a constitutional right was violated; (2) whether that right was clearly established and one of which a reasonable person would have known

Bell v. Konteh

253 F.R.D. 413 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 19, 2008

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or … Qualified Immunity Now turning to the issue of qualified immunity, it is clear that Plaintiff has again satisfied his burden.

Dietrich v. Burrows

976 F. Supp. 1099 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 19, 1997

Qualified Immunity The second issue before the Court is whether, despite the lack of probable cause, the officers have qualified immunity for their actions. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of