Case law

Quinn v. Doe

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 25, 2023

A court conducting a qualified immunity inquiry at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage must “determine whether the facts alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right, and . . . ask whether the right at issue was clearly established … Defendants have not met their burden to establish they are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage, or to show Quinn has failed to state a plausible claim for relief.

McGovern v. Lucas County, Ohio and the Lucas County Board of Commissioners

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2021

right at issue in the case was “‘clearly established’” at the time the defendant acted. … For purposes of the qualified-immunity inquiry, a constitutional right is clearly established if it is “sufficiently clear[, such] that every reasonable official would [have understood] that what he is doing violates that

Kilnapp v. City of Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 2022

Moreover, any alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established. … A government official will be entitled to immunity from suit as long as his conduct does not violate “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Wormald v. Bracy

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the claims set forth in the Complaint. … violate clearly established st atutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Petrone v. Cleveland State University

993 F. Supp. 1119 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 26, 1998

Ohio Rev.Code § 2743.02 contains the situations in which the state waives its immunity. … Plaintiff clearly fails to meet these burdens. There is no evidence that Dr.

Richardson v. Haynie

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 7, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields from liability for civil damages those officials whose ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In determining the existence of qualified immunity, courts look to whether "(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged

Johnson v. City of Toledo

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2023

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 would have … The burden is on Plaintiff to show (1) a constitutional violation and (2) law showing that right is clearly established. Because he has not done so, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Nichols v. Trustmark Ins. Co.(Mutual)

1 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 1997

The technological assessment bodies established by state or federal governments that I am aware of have not clearly considered high dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue for metastatic breast cancer to be standard of care … The law in Ohio regarding bad faith claims against an insurer is clearly established.

Curl v. Dammeyer

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

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 would have … There is no clearly established law holding a garage or driveway is always protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Joelson v. United States

179 B.R. 857 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 1995

“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He *863 must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … The issues of personal jurisdiction over the *865 individual Defendants and the qualified immunity of Defendants need not be reached. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Wright v. Chambers-Smith

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

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Finally, Defendants move to dismiss Wright’s remaining Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Vance, arguing Vance is entitled to qualified immunity … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly

Harvey III v. Franklin

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 17, 2025

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 … “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.

Fried v. Garcia

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 3, 2024

Garcia argues that, as a police officer, he is entitled to qualified immunity. An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Pearson v. … This argument is based on the same facts as Garcia’s argument for qualified immunity.

Perry v. Money

619 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 31, 2007

Agreeing with this holding, the Court finds the ruling on admissibility was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. … These statements do nothing other than describe to the jury what his role as a prosecutor is, and articulate clearly established principles in our justice system. See Lorraine v.

Singletary v. City of Toledo, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 2, 2025

“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 which a reasonable … “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.”

Ramilla v. Jennings

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 25, 2023

“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).

Yatsko v. Graziolli

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

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless a constitutional violation occurred and the rights at issue were clearly established at the time of the misconduct. Barker v. … Ohio Aug. 29, 2013) (entering final judgement on the grant of qualified immunity on one § 1983 claim where the defendant was appealing the denial of qualified immunity on a different § 1983 claim); Abdulsalaam v.

Doe v. City of Cleveland

788 F. Supp. 979 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 1991

In an official capacity suit, the defense of qualified immunity is not available. 3 To prevail in this suit, then, Doe must show that an official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right … The parties have spent a considerable amount of time briefing the issue of qualified immunity.

Jones v. Village of Highland Hills

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 30, 2021

Qualified Immunity and Fourth Amendment Standards Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are immune from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … immunity because his use of the taser was objectively reasonable under the circumstances; (3) Officer Cvanciger is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that pointing a taser violated Jones

Palomino v. Cuyahoga County, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 21, 2022

Qualified Immunity Even if Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Moctezuma were not time-barred, Officer Moctezuma is entitled to qualified immunity.   … , preferably prior to broad discovery.”30 Once a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, “plaintiff bears the burden of showing that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.