Case law

Harris v. McLaughlin

732 F. Supp. 780 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 26, 1989

. § 2012 (a) which requires a federal contractor to “take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified special disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam era.” … The burden of establishing exclusion from judicial review is on defendants. Bachowski v.

Swan Carburetor Co. v. General Motors Corporation

42 F.2d 452 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 1927

Swan’s original application clearly discloses what I have stated to be the gist and substance of his invention. … A grant of immunity from any and all claims, either for royalty or otherwise, means precisely what it says. The licensee would not be immune if the due date for payment only were postponed.

Craig v. Lima City Schools Board of Education

384 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 31, 2005

Martinez does not, and cannot, 16 claim any qualified immunity; so that need not be discussed. … By the time Martinez was engaging in the relevant conduct, there was "a clearly established right under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause to personal security and to bodily integrity, ...

Pesta v. Cleveland State University

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 14, 2023

Instead, “[q]ualified 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 … At the motion to dismiss stage, courts “review an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’ ” Back v.

League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Blackwell

432 F. Supp. 2d 734 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2006

depart from the law of the case doctrine only in limited circumstances: “where there is substantially different evidence raised on subsequent trial; a subsequent contrary view of the law by the controlling authority; or a clearly … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 310 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (“It is well within the supervisory powers of the courts of appeals to establish summary procedures and calendars to weed out frivolous claims.”).

Phillips

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 15, 2025

Plaintiff further argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity where the evidence shows Cantwell clearly violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from excessive force that amounts to punishment … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Rogers v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

588 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 2, 2008

location, and the Court will assume she was otherwise qualified. … The Defendant submits these claims are immune under the workers’ compensation immunity doctrine. The appellate court in Saunders v. Holzer Hosp.

Morrison v. Mahoning County, Ohio

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

Qualified Immunity Defendant DeGenova preemptively invokes the defense of qualified immunity. See ECF No. 18 at PageID #: 291. … “To avoid the shield of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must properly plead ‘facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of

Roarty-Nugent v. Cuyahoga County

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 15, 2020

To survive a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, the complaint must allege facts that “plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established … In determining this second element of the qualified immunity test in a situation involving supervisor liability, the court first examines whether the right the subordinate officers violated was Clearly established.

Sanders v. Cuyahoga County

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 20, 2022

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleadings stage if (1) “the facts alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) that right “was clearly established when the event occurred so that … “[I]f the complaint fails to allege facts plausibly showing the violation of a constitutional right (regardless of whether that right was clearly established), granting qualified immunity is appropriate on the pleadings

Wohl v. Cleveland Board of Education

741 F. Supp. 688 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 15, 1990

Their inquiry is clearly fact specific. … may be asserted to establish non-liability: ****** In addition to any immunity or defense...., and in circumstances not covered by that division, the employee is immune from liability. 4 .

Smith Land Company, Inc v. City of Fairlawn, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 2023

Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Therefore, Wilk’s alleged individual liability for a taking claim is not clearly established.

Benedict v. United States

785 F. Supp. 97 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 1991

It was clearly established by the evidence presented by the government at the initial trial, and is not disputed by Dr. … The record in this case clearly indicates that plaintiffs have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the swine flu inoculation directly and proximately caused plaintiff Virginia Benedict’s GBS.

Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Central Corp.

600 F. Supp. 859 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 1984

established. … N & W then urges that [t]he ICC is the only forum qualified to decide issues arising under the technical language of the Eastern Railroads Section 5a Agreement because it approved the very language at issue and exercised

Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio

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

[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. … Dismissing for qualified immunity on this ground is sometimes difficult because the clearly established inquiry may turn on case-specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery.” Id. at 765.

Hogan v. City of Parma, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 18, 2020

. § 1983 and Qualified Immunity i. … “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.” Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.

United States v. Blank

330 F. Supp. 783 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 1971

The government argued that once the validity of a search is established under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not and cannot be violated. … The jury knows the books and records belong to the defendant and the entries he has made therein speak against him as clearly as his own voice.” 445 F.2d at 149 .

Benton v. City of Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 2020

Because no such authority existed, Ortega did not establish any clearly established constitutional violation, and the officers enjoyed a qualified immunity from his claims. Ortega, 737 F.3d at 440. … Qualified immunity is unavailable when the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523; Pearson v.

United States v. Aiuppa

102 F. Supp. 609 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 1952

'But the pertinency of the questions is an essential element of the offense and must be established by evidence or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. … But, as indicated above, his guilt has been proved clearly as to three of the charges in the indictment.

Cogswell v. Vienna Township, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 8, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in question in this instant matter. … To overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must plausibly plead facts showing 1) that Defendants violated a constitutional right and 2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time