Case law

Ehrlich v. Kovack

135 F. Supp. 3d 638 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 1, 2015

immunity as the Plaintiff cannot establish that this violation was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

White v. City of Toledo

217 F. Supp. 2d 838 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 2002

The law is well established that a city’s alleged failure, even if intentional, to enforce speed limit, does not state a § 1983 against a municipality. Hull v. … The defendants are, accordingly, entitled to summary judgment, without regard to their entitlement to qualified immunity.

Johnson v. City of Willoughby Hills

720 F. Supp. 612 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 1989

Nor are actual motives for conduct to be considered in evaluating a qualified immunity defense. 765 F.2d at 6 . … immunity.

Randle v. Gokey

469 F. Supp. 452 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 6, 1979

Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975), the Supreme Court discussed the policies underlying qualified good faith immunity: Liability for damages for every action which is found subsequently to have … In Strickland , the Court refined its formulation of qualified good faith immunity, setting forth a two-part test which, though made in the specific context of school discipline, is useful in analyzing the instant case: [

Taylor

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 4, 2025

This Court Cannot Determine Whether Sheriff Fatheree Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings It is clearly established that, with a few exceptions, a government … established for purposes of qualified immunity, including Hicks v.

Y.S. v. Board of Education of Mathews Local School District

766 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 2011

Whether or not Seiple is part of the lawsuit, facts can be developed to establish his actions and the fact-finder can determine from those facts whether the Board of Education is liable for Seiple’s actions taken in his official … Clearly there is no allegation with respect to any responsibility regarding the condition of public roads; hence, the third exception is inapplicable.

Brown v. Short

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 5, 2022

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 … Since Defendants raised the qualified immunity defense, Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Johnson, 790 F.3d at 653.

Blythe v. Schlievert

245 F. Supp. 3d 946 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 2017

In that order, in addition to finding lack of state action and entitlement to qualified immunity, I concluded that the complaint failed to state a plausible- or otherwise cognizable constitutional shock the conscience claim … Finally, even if that were not enough to grant the individual defendants’ motion, qualified immunity would protect them.

Giles v. University of Toledo

478 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 2007

waives immunity or Congress abrogates the immunity. … Therefore, The University is immune from Section 1983 claims.

Garnow

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2026

Qualified immunity “spares officers from ‘the time, expense and risk of money-damages actions’ unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights.” Moore v. … App’x 284, 288 (6th Cir. 2020) (“Notably, Ohio statutory immunity ‘does not appear to require analysis of whether the underlying right has been clearly established in precedent, as does qualified immunity.’”)

Stein v. Kent State University Board of Trustees

994 F. Supp. 898 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 18, 1998

The State of Ohio has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Stein was not qualified for reappointment in 1995 and so cannot establish her prima facie case. Defendants have legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for not reappointing her.

Quinn v. Doe

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 26, 2025

“The doctrine of 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 … The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that a clearly established right existed when the defendant’s actions took place such that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Sallier, 343 F.3d at 878.

Rodgers

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 27, 2026

“Clearly established law” should not be defined “at a high level of generality” and the clearly established law must be “particularized” to the facts of the case. Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 742; Anderson vy. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), the Supreme Court established a two-step inquiry for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. /d. at 201.

Donahoo v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

237 F. Supp. 2d 844 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 2002

ODYS clearly satisfies both elements. … A state maintains Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court though it has waived its immunity from liability and consented to be sued in its own courts. See id.

Benedict v. Seiberling

17 F.2d 841 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 5, 1927

In that argument it appeared very clearly that no definite information of any concrete alleged fact had come to counsel now supporting the motion whieh tended in any way to establish a conclusion of fraudulent collusion in … The eases cited and discussed clearly denote that so to do would be an abuse of discretion and an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Lollis

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 8, 2026

See Doc. 1, at 6, 8-9.5 Roberts and Mulinix move for summary judgment on this claim, asserting they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation, much less a clearly … 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

Philpott v. City of Stow

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 25, 2025

The Officers and Quiner argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Philpott alleges no plausible violations of any clearly established constitutional right. (Doc. No. 14, at 6–8; Doc. … So, where qualified immunity turns on whether a right was clearly established, the Sixth Circuit has expressed a “general preference” against granting immunity at the pleadings stage because that “inquiry may turn on case-specific

Feliciano v. City of Cleveland

661 F. Supp. 578 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 12, 1987

The individual defendants’ supplemental motion for dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity is granted with respect to fourth amendment claims and deferred with respect to plaintiffs’ other claims. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS On January 22, 1986, the individual defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Schee v. Levorchick

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 21, 2025

“The doctrine of 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 … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) 2 In Lawler, the Sixth Circuit reiterated that the qualified immunity analysis requires courts to determine whether caselaw clearly established that a public official’s actions were

Bukta v. JC Penney Co., Inc.

359 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 22, 2004

Whether the Plaintiff is Otherwise Qualifíed Bukta next bears the burden of establishing the second prong of her prima facie case — that she is otherwise qualified for the position despite her disability. … It does not immunize employers from all negligence suits, “but instead makes them immune from common-law actions for any ‘injury’ suffered on the job.” Id.