Case law

Maynard v. Kear

474 F. Supp. 794 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 19, 1979

It is well established that such discretionary acts by a prosecutor must be protected from civil liability. Therefore, Albenze is absolutely immune from the plaintiffs’ claim. Imbler v. … The police officers also are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of a qualified immunity.

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.

Anderson v. Kent State University

804 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2011

The individually-named defendants also assert qualified immunity in response to Plaintiffs claims against them in their individual capacities. … Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials performing discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Mullane v. Kassinger

107 F. Supp. 2d 877 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 13, 2000

Officer Kassinger’s arguments, however, require reopening of this Court’s earlier analysis of the issue of qualified or good faith immunity. … Officer Kassinger’s conduct to the contrary arguably violated this “ clearly established” law.

Jerman v. CARLISLE, McNELLIE, RINI, KRAMER

502 F. Supp. 2d 686 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2007

For these reasons, the Court finds that defendants qualify for the bona fide error defense. (3) whether defendants are absolutely immune from liability because their actions were an integral part of the judicial process Defendants … The court further noted that the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense provision offers a kind of qualified immunity to debt collectors, protecting actions which otherwise are covered by the statute but arose from bona fide error

Coleman v. Wirtz

745 F. Supp. 434 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 10, 1990

Defendant Wirtz has filed a Motion for a Protective Order on the basis of qualified immunity! … There is no need to address the qualified immunity issue here. 4.

Ball v. Brown

450 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 20, 1977

IMMUNITY The State of Ohio asserts that this action is precluded as to it under the provisions of the eleventh amendment. … The Ballot Box does not purport to establish any rule, regulation or guidelines to be followed by Boards of Elections in Ohio.

Buckeye Community Hope Foundation v. City of Cuyahoga Falls

970 F. Supp. 1289 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 1997

A state official is entitled to qualified immunity if his allegedly unlawful conduct was objectively reasonable when considered in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the challenged conduct … If either question in the two part qualified immunity analysis is answered in the negative, summary judgment must be granted to the state actor as a matter of law.

Lawson v. City of Youngstown

912 F. Supp. 2d 527 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2012

Legal Standard The authority to reconsider denial before final judgment has been entered is *529 well established. E.g., Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 5A(b); Christianson v. Colt Indus. … Furthermore, an “employee” is primarily defined through its exemptions, such exemptions including “any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or

Scourtes v. Fred W. Albrecht Grocery Co.

15 F.R.D. 55 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 19, 1953

Re-examination of the Court’s order of production reveals quite clearly that the plaintiff has misconceived its purport. … The “work product” of an attorney is not in every instance immune from discovery.

Hill v. Aro Corporation

263 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 1967

In both cases the rule of immunity applied. … “Under federal law it is now a clearly established national policy to encourage the use of arbitration.” Rhine v. Union Carbide Corp., 343 F.2d 12, 16 (6th Cir. 1965).

Wolverton

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 5, 2026

A “clearly established right” for the purpose of determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “is one that is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what … 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.

Leistiko v. Secretary of the Army

922 F. Supp. 66 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 1996

. §§ 701 et seq., waives sovereign immunity for his claim. The APA does contain a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. … In order to come within the protection of the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiff must be an “otherwise qualified individual with a disability.” 29 U.S.C. § 794 (a).

Ward

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 15, 2026

“To overcome a qualified-immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that an officer’s use of force conflicted with ‘clearly established’ law.” Id. (citation omitted). … Our qualified-immunity cases illustrate the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when, as here, a court decides only the clearly- established prong of the standard.

Shrieve v. United States

16 F. Supp. 2d 853 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 2, 1998

The Act includes a number of exceptions to this broad waiver of sovereign immunity. … The delivery route configuration chosen was clearly one of the route configuration options within the discretion of the postmaster.

Sheets

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 28, 2026

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” White v. … When a defendant invokes qualified immunity in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must offer sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact that the defendant violated a clearly established right.

Plate v. Johnson

149 F. Supp. 3d 827 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 25, 2016

purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly … The foregoing authorities establish that, far from defining “capacity” to. sue, as Rule 17 uses that term, § 301.22 constitutes a waiver of a county’s immunity from suit. It therefore provides no support for the.

Doe v. SexSearch. Com

502 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 22, 2007

The CDA clearly does not immunize a defendant from allegations that it created tortious content by itself, as the statute only grants immunity when the information that forms the basis for the state law claim has been provided … Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir.2003) (“an ‘interactive computer service’ qualifies for immunity so long as it does not also function as an ‘information content provider’ for the portion of the statement

Washington v. City of Cleveland

948 F. Supp. 1301 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 16, 1996

The qualified-immunity provisions of Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2744.08(A)(5), as relevant here, shield Defendants from liability under the following conditions: “The political subdivision is immune from liability if the injury … This charge was clearly premised upon race and sex.

Lane v. Dolman

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 3, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … ; and 2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation, meaning that the search was clearly unreasonable.