Case law

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).

Smith v. City of Youngstown

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 19, 2020

Plaintiffs maintain that because “the right to be free from state created danger” is clearly established, Dispatch Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … The Sixth Circuit denied the state actors’ assertion of qualified immunity, reasoning that the right to be free from state created danger was clearly established.

Donahue v. Gutman

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2025

a case on qualified immunity grounds prior to discovery. … issue in the case was “clearly established” at the time the defendant acted.

Saalim v. Walmart Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 16, 2023

On the second prong of the inquiry, Bretzloff argues his tasing of Plaintiff was not a clearly established violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, thus entitling Bretzloff to qualified immunity. … Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a right is clearly established in order to oppose a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity. Cunningham v. Shelby Cnty., 994 F.3d 761, 765 (6th Cir. 2021).

Huffman v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

111 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2000

Whirlpool argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because 1) it is immune from liability under the Ohio Constitution and Ohio Workers’ Compensation Law, 2) it is immune from liability under the fellow-servant rule, … Sharon Cole, should be excluded because her testimony cannot satisfy the admissibility criteria established under Daubert v.

Solarz v. Gravens

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 22, 2020

Any action which is “objectively reasonable” in light of the “clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue” will be protected by qualified immunity. Id. … determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”

Shankle v. City of North Royalton Police Department

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 24, 2021

“Qualified immunity ‘is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official.’ Harlow, 457 U.S. 800 at 815. But qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” … unreasonable in light of some clearly established constitutional right.”

Ja’Nae Laria Johnson v. Liberty Township et al.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 6, 2026

McGarry are entitled to qualified immunity because the LEADS report sufficiently established probable cause supporting Plaintiff’s arrest and, even if not, clearly established law excuses Defendants’ “reasonabl[e] but … Government officials may invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves from civil liability in the performance of their duties so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

United States v. Brown

223 F. Supp. 3d 697 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 29, 2016

Here, aside from assertion of irrelevance, respondents point to nothing in particular that would qualify as an “irrelevant” inquiry and, absent that, no burden, much less an undue burden, is established, especially since … First, it has not been clearly decided that a lawsuit is a constitutionally protected "petition.” See Borough of Duryea, PA v.

Laborers' International Union of North America v. Neff

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 17, 2021

Neff and Judge O’Malley also contend that the claims should be dismissed based on the doctrine of qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. … 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

Dowd

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

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 … 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.

Angeline v. Mahoning County Agricultural Society

993 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 5, 1998

DEFENDANT DAILEY IS NOT ENTITLED TO A QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. 1. No Doctrine Of Qualified Immunity Is Applicable To Dailey. Plaintiff seeks only injunctive and prospective relief against Dailey. … immunity, as a matter of law.

Hout v. City of Mansfield

550 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 23, 2008

Here, Plaintiffs cannot prevail on any of their federal or state law claims, and thus they are unable to establish that they have been deprived of justiciable rights, privileges, and/or immunities under § 1983. … Curry to statutory immunity.

Anderson v. Ridgeway

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 4, 2024

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 this 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.

Moore v. City of Cleveland

388 F. Supp. 3d 908 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 21, 2019

immunity, and that the City is immune under Monell v. … Bd. of Zoning Appeals , 966 F.2d 1031 , 1036 (6th Cir. 1992) ("To establish a violation of substantive due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a constitutionally-protected property or liberty interest

Filip v. Flanagan

729 F. Supp. 1149 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 18, 1989

Clearly, divorce decrees, indigency determinations, and contempt hearings are those acts normally performed by a Common Pleas Court Judge. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411, 425 (1985) (qualified immunity).

Flynn v. Flynn

560 F. Supp. 922 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 21, 1983

The Jones Court stated: The language of § 2511(l)(a) quite clearly expresses a blanket prohibition on all electronic surveillance except under circumstances specifically enumerated in the statute .... 542 F.2d at 667 . … . § 2511 (l)(a) establishes a broad prohibition on all private electronic surveillance and that a principal area of congressional concern was electronic surveillance for the purposes of marital litigation. 542 F.2d at 669

O'Kelly v. Russell Township Board of Trustees

675 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 16, 1987

In relation to plaintiff’s arrest, defendant Barnes asserts that no constitutional deprivation has been stated or established and that there is no material issue of fact that he is entitled to qualified immunity based upon … Forsyth, the Court reaffirmed the existence of qualified immunity for the Attorney General, as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, “so long as his actions do not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional

Cook v. Boss

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2024

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from liability as long as their conduct “did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, the court concludes that Officer Boss and Vasas are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s unlawful entry claim because Plaintiff cannot establish that the officers’ actions were a violation of clearly

Stansell

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 7, 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 … There is no clearly established law that would have alerted Defendant that his conduct violated the Eighth Amendment.