Case law

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

Hall of Distributors, Inc. v. Bowers

139 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 22, 1956

A statute is presumed to be valid and the burden is on the parties attacking it as violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to show that its provisions are so clearly unreasonable and arbitrary as to deprive … of merchandise is one that requires public supervision so that purchasers will not be imposed on or the owners of property sold at auction defrauded, and that the state, in the exercise of its police power, may limit or qualify

Sessler v. Miller

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in the performance of their duties so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established … 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.

Young v. Mahoning County, Ohio

418 F. Supp. 2d 948 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2005

Additionally, the Court indicated that “[t]he Defendant ha[d] raised the defense of qualified immunity in their [sic] answer. … Insofar as there are no individual defendants, qualified immunity [was] not a proper defense.” (Case No. 4:01 CV 01508, Dkt. # 10). The Defendant thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment.

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

Leppla v. Julie Kagel, formerly Marion County Clerk of Court

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 31, 2020

and second, whether that right was clearly established. … Because Plaintiff has not met his burden to show a clearly established right violated by Defendant’s conduct, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity in her individual capacity.

Sultaana v. Corrigan

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

Qualified Immunity Government officials are protected from liability for civil damages, including those that arise under §1983, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Clearly Established The second element of the qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right was Clearly established at the time of the incident. Campbell v.

Kilnapp v. City of Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suit as long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … For a clearly established right, there does not need to be “a case directly on point.” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741.

Howard v. Onion

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2023

is clearly established, courts cannot define that right “at a high level of generality.”18 Rather, the right “must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.”19 A right may be clearly established even if there has … his burden at step two of the qualified immunity analysis.

Fasline

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2026

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability under § 1983 unless they ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … App’x 344, 347 (6th Cir. 2020) (granting qualified immunity to officers on failure to intervene claim where the plaintiff cited “no caselaw clearly establishing that officers who are not trained as dog handlers have a duty

Atsas v. Bowen

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

A government official who is performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity from suit3 as long as his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity.

Singfield v. Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority

266 F. Supp. 2d 728 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 20, 2003

However, even if the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment, Defendant O’Leary is entitled to qualified immunity from civil suits for damages on these claims. … conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Johnson v. Peterson

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2022

For purposes of the qualified immunity inquiry, a right is clearly established if its “contours [are] . . . sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … The qualified immunity inquiry is time-frame dependent: the government official’s actions are “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time . . . [those actions were] taken.”

A.S. v. Elyria City Schools

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 7, 2024

To show that a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that “existing precedent has ‘placed the . . . constitutional question beyond debate.’” … Binding precedent establishes that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on A.S.’s cross-examination claim.

Darwish

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 31, 2026

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in the performance of their duties so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Although the issue has not been addressed by the Sixth Circuit directly, other circuits have held that, in the context of supervisor liability, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied

Stadmire v. Henderson

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 20, 2024

immunity because no clearly established law informed them that their actions were unconstitutional. … The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability where their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable

Doty v. Magnum Research, Inc.

994 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 16, 1997

III If a defendant qualifies as a “foreign state,” then it must be served according to *896 Section 1608(a) of the FSIA. … We note that the Schlunk case did not involve the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Krantz v. City of Toledo Police Department

365 F. Supp. 2d 832 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 15, 2005

All Defendants assert immunity. *835 a. … Given Krantz’s agitated and aggressive response to the police, such force was clearly warranted and justified, d.

Ware v. Cimmento

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 31, 2024

“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 v. … Katz, the Supreme Court established a two-step inquiry for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

Eggleston v. Wayne County, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 11, 2021

violated clearly established law at the time that it was committed. … ’ use of force violated Decedent’s clearly established constitutional rights.”