Case law

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).

Al-Menhali v. Marriott International Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 6, 2019

immunity. … 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

Hull v. American Wire Weavers' Protective Ass'n

159 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 1957

The legislative purpose is expressed in words that are precise and explicit and, when read in context, seem clearly to exclude the strike here in question from the operation of the section. … The employees who are members of the union were qualified to perform the work of weaving wire.

United States v. Delta Industries, Inc.

275 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 1966

It is then argued that the counter-claim is clearly based on alleged discretionary acts, and thus the United States is excused from liability under 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (a). … At the best, the allegations establish a claim that S.B.A. could have, but failed to, dispose of the collateral under the terms of the mortgage.

In re Heparin Products Liability Litigation

803 F. Supp. 2d 712 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 21, 2011

Defendants urge the court to exclude all of these experts’ opinions, arguing that they are not qualified to offer their opinions, they rely on evidence that' is insufficient as a matter of law to establish causation, and … nor for a non-immune-mediated reaction.”

Mayer v. Cuyahoga County

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 19, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public officials against lawsuits for civil damages where their conduct does not violate the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. Martin v. … “To survive the motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, the plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly make out a claim that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established

United States v. Braeview Manor, Inc. (In Re Braeview Manor, Inc.)

268 B.R. 523 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2001

. § 158 (a). 1 The court reviews the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard and its conclusions of law de novo. Industrial Equipment Co. v. … Thus, there are three prerequisites for establishing a Section 7426 waiver of sovereign immunity. First, the person asserting the wrongful levy claim must not be the person against whom the tax is assessed. McGinness v.

Brumbach

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 24, 2026

Bonar’s conduct were unreasonable, the law at the time of the shooting did not clearly establish that such conduct would violate the Constitution and, therefore, he remains entitled to qualified immunity. … cannot clearly establish the law.”

Easley v. Zimmerman

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 7, 2021

“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 person … Ohio) (“Defendants have moved for judgment based on qualified immunity, contending they did not violate Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights. . .

Shah v. University of Toledo

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 2021

“When the qualified immunity defense is raised at the pleading stage, the court must determine only whether the complaint adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.” … Plaintiff does not expressly respond to this argument; in fact, the words “qualified immunity” or “clearly established” do not appear in her brief in opposition. See Doc. 10.  

Herris v. Andrew

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 2024

Qualified immunity shields 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 … When a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show “that the challenged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and that the right was so clearly established at the time

Barnette v. Kennedy

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 2, 2024

Qualified Immunity The qualified doctrine protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … As such, Defendant has established his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Jackson v. City of Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 22, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials against lawsuits for civil damages where their conduct does not violate a plaintiff’s clearly established … Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that qualified immunity does not bar suit. Id.

McGee v. Moon

685 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 23, 2010

To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , plaintiff must assert that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United … Judge Moon is therefore entitled to absolute immunity from damages in this matter. Mr. McGee also failed to establish that he was deprived of a constitutional right, the second element of a § 1983 action.

Advanced Technology Corp. v. Eliskim, Inc.

96 F. Supp. 2d 715 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 3, 2000

Among other things, to qualify as an innocent landowner in this case, ATC must establish “by a preponderance of the evidence that the release... of a hazardous substance... … In their motion for reconsideration, Eliskim argues that 'this Court erred in holding that protection can only be forward looking arid cited a Third Circuit case which held that contribution protection could immunize a settlor

United States v. Kaigler

109 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 31, 2000

The Kaiglers fail to identify any specific statute waiving sovereign immunity, and the Court cannot freely imply an exception. Absent this express waiver of immunity, the Court is hard-pressed to attach jurisdiction. … The dates of those documents are established by the term "First Notice” listed in the Certificates for each tax year. See United States v. Lorson, 480 F.2d 554, 555-6 (2nd Cir.1973).

Burghardt v. Ryan

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

were clearly established at the time of the shooting. … However, even if plaintiffs had established the existence of a constitutional violation, qualified immunity would protect defendants because the rights at issue herein were not clearly established. 19

Jamison v. Schumacher

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

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 … 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).

Walton v. United States

997 F. Supp. 2d 808 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 31, 2014

Under that reasoning, FTCA’s statute of limitations clearly bars plaintiff Walton’s action because she alleges negligence resulting in amputation of her ward’s foot. … Congress has clearly elected not to allow the federal courts to consider any claims arising out of, inter alia, misrepresentation and deceit.