Case law

Oros v. Hull & Associates, Inc.

302 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 30, 2004

Defendant asserts that summary judgment is appropriate on all claims both because plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie intentional *843 tort case and because defendant is immune from tort actions under Ohio Rev.Code … Because Ohio’s workers’ compensation program grants employers immunity from employee lawsuits except in cases where the employer has committed an intentional tort, plaintiff must establish that defendant committed an intentional

Stevens v. Califano

448 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 19, 1978

The male parent shall have established a prior connection with the labor force . . … The Court further stated, however: But this ‘does not, of course, immunize [social welfare legislation] from scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment.’ .

Johnson v. Clark

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 5, 2024

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity in the face of a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff bears an additional burden of pleading facts that, if taken as true, establish not only the violation of his rights, but … Plaintiff did not come forward with fact allegations to overcome qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Clark

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

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity in the face of a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff bears an additional burden of pleading facts that, if taken as true, establish not only the violation of his rights, but … Plaintiff did not come forward with fact allegations to overcome qualified immunity.

Manning v. Henry

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2025

Defendant further asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. See id. at 10-12. … Due to Plaintiff’s inability to establish a constitutional violation, much less a clearly established one, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Harlow v.

Kiekisz v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners/Cuyahoga County

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 9, 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. … Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that qualified immunity does not bar suit. Id.

Lawson v. Dutch Heritage Farms, Inc.

502 F. Supp. 2d 698 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 1, 2007

The Tennessee Appellate Court noted that under Tennessee’s EALA, “equine activity sponsors,’ ‘equine professionals,’ and others have enjoyed qualified immunity from suit in Tennessee.” Id., supra at *3. … , for the participant to counter carrying the burden to establish that “[t]he immunity from tort ... is forfeited ...” by one of the four listed “circumstances” under subsection B(2).

Frank v. University of Toledo

621 F. Supp. 2d 475 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 28, 2007

The parties in the instant case do not dispute Defendant is entitled to immunity to the same extent as the State of Ohio. Ohio has not waived its immunity by legislation. … Defendant next claims Plaintiff cannot establish he was damaged as a result of the breach of contract.

Connolly v. Dunlop

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 26, 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).

Manley v. Hughes

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 31, 2019

Qualified Immunity Williams, Shannon, and Filipowicz are not entitled to qualified immunity at this time. … The qualified immunity doctrine shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their action did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory violations

City of Olmsted Falls v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

233 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 25, 2002

Thus, on the plain face of the statute Congress clearly and unequivocally waived sovereign immunity as to the Administrator 8 to the extent a plaintiff asserts a claim for failure on the part of the Administrator to perform … While plaintiffs clearly allege that the Section 404 Permit is invalid now, there is no allegation that the permit was invalid when issued.

Berrier v. Lake County, Ohio and Lake County Board of Comissioners

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 28, 2024

qualified immunity, “[c]learly established law may not be defined at such a high level of generality.” … Therefore the cases it relied on constitute the “clearly established” law relevant to the qualified immunity issue in this case.

Carey v. Mannella

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2022

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Consequently, the constitutional right at issue was clearly established and Officer Mannella is not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment. G.

Kucinich v. Forbes

432 F. Supp. 1101 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 1977

The defendants argue that they are immune from suit on two grounds. … Brandhove found that state legislators had an immunity from damage actions. Only a qualified immunity exists for legislators of a municipality. See, e. g., Lynch v. Johnson, 420 F.2d 818, 821 (6th Cir., 1970); Parine v.

Afjeh v. Village of Ottawa Hills

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2022

Defendants argue they are shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. (Doc. 10, at 14). … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Bickerstaff v. Cuyahoga County

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 8, 2022

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 … established prong to overcome qualified immunity.

Boyd v. Huffman

32 Ohio Misc. 77 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 23, 1972

Clearly then, Peres cannot stand for the principle that “bad faith” is a necessary element of an action under §1983 for damages. Indeed, the opposite conclusion has been reached in most of the circuits. 1 In Jenkins v. … Defendants do not, in the first part of their argument, establish sufficient reason to sustain their motion for summary judgment.

Parker v. Ottawa County

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 2022

Government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts which do not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Comstock v. … When considering whether qualified immunity applies, the Court must determine whether defendants violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of violation. Dominguez v.

Bennett v. Lopeman

598 F. Supp. 774 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 4, 1984

He clearly could not challenge his ability to appeal until the Board had issued its decision and mailed out its notice. … It is established that in most instances the U.S. mails can be “reasonably calculated” to notify an individual.

Davis v. Watkins

384 F. Supp. 1196 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 9, 1974

A record of any seizures, illnesses, treatments, immunizations. s. … Such exits should be clearly indicated with appropriate signs and illuminated at night.