Case law

Harris v. Muchnicki

932 F. Supp. 192 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 29, 1996

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss and/or for Qualified Immunity” (Document #4). Defendant’s motion is hereby GRANTED. … qualified immunity.

Joyce v. Gilligan

383 F. Supp. 1028 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 7, 1974

immunity from damage suits attached. … As concerns the scope of this immunity, the Court adopts the so-called “good faith for qualified governmental immunity” test set forth by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Donaldson v.

Haas v. Quest Recovery Services, Inc.

338 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 20, 2004

In Lane , the Supreme Court established that Title II is a valid exercise of Congress’s Fourteenth Amendment enforcement authority to protect a plaintiffs due process right of access to the courts. Id. at 1992 . … Plaintiffs satisfy the first and second elements by alleging that Rachel Haas was a qualified individual with a disability. Ohio does not challenge this allegation.

Ferguson v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc.

475 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 15, 2007

Viad Corporation Qualifies as a “Person” Viad Corporation qualifies as a “person” under § 1442(a)(1). Thompson v. Community Ins. Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. … These designs must be approved by the Navy with more than just a “rubber stamp” to establish the military contractor defense. Id. at 1154 .

Connone v. Transport Desgagnes, Inc.

976 F. Supp. 1111 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 13, 1997

The County’s operation of the Erie Avenue Bridge qualifies as a “governmental function.” Id. … The 11th Amendment grants immunity to individual states in suits at law or in equity. It is well established, however, that 11th Amendment immunity does not extend to counties, cities, and other municipal corporations.

United States v. Di Carlo

102 F. Supp. 597 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 1952

The court immediately added the qualifying declaration first announced in Mason v. … The rule clearly is that a party is not bound to make any discovery which would expose him to penalties, and this case falls within it. The decree of the court below is, therefore, affirmed.”

Negin v. City of Mentor, Ohio

601 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 1985

City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 657 , 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1418 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), the Supreme Court held that municipal entities are not protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Having established that they are personally immune from damages in this action, summary judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendant Board members and against plaintiff Negin.

Dixon v. University of Toledo

842 F. Supp. 2d 1044 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 2012

Additional Defenses Defendants raise two additional defenses: qualified immunity for both Defendants for claims against them in their individual capacity and Logie’s lack of involvement in Plaintiffs termination. … The defense of qualified immunity challenges a plaintiff to both show a violation of a constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Pearson v.

Rescue Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Mental Health & Recovery Services Board of Lucas County

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 8, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … “This is because the unlawful intent inherent in such a retaliatory action places it beyond the scope of a [public official’s] qualified immunity if the right retaliated against was clearly established.” Campbell v.

Wise v. Maier

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 24, 2023

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Courts employ a two-part test to determine if qualified immunity applies.

Przybysz v. City of Toledo

302 F. Supp. 3d 915 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 17, 2017

Qualified immunity "protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … My qualified immunity analysis is two-pronged: first, I must decide whether the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right; and second, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct

Wood v. Summit County Fiscal Office

579 F. Supp. 2d 935 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2008

Qualified Immunity: Government officials may be “held liable in their personal capacity for actions they take in their official capacity.” Hafer v. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability due to performance of discretionary functions unless plaintiff asserts the official violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Kilnapp

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 17, 2026

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suit as long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Plaintiff also contends that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity under the “clearly established” analysis.

White v. City of Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 23, 2020

Thus, in evaluating whether a constitutional right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, courts “must examine the particular situation that [the defendant officers] confronted and ask whether the law … clearly established that their conduct was unlawful.”

Lausin Ex Rel. Lausin v. Bishko

727 F. Supp. 2d 610 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 15, 2010

Immunity. 8 . … immunity. 12 .

Goodrich

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 16, 2026

Qualified immunity “shields governmental officials from monetary damages as long as ‘their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … The Court finds Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as they have established there is no question of material fact regarding whether they committed a constitutional violation, much less a clearly established one

Manning v. Petiniot, Jr.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2025

Defendants further assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that either violated a clearly established constitutional right. See id. at 10-11. … As to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “[f]or a right to be clearly established, ‘existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.’” Bell v.

Vistein v. American Registry of Radiologic Technologists

509 F. Supp. 2d 666 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 13, 2007

The ARRT argues it qualifies as a “health care entity” and it should be immune from liability for the actions carried out through its ethics committee. … Based upon the above, the Court concludes the ARRT qualifies for statutory immunity under Ohio Revised Code §§ 2305.251 and 2305.25.

Yoder

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 4, 2026

Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim is also barred by qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not pleaded a constitutional violation or a clearly established right. … Once a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must demonstrate both that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right, and that the right was so clearly established at the

Burnette

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 11, 2026

a clearly established right. … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established, though the steps need not be taken in that order.