Case law

Lockett v. City of Akron

714 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 19, 2010

Clearly, plaintiffs’ argument interprets the statutory exception entirely too broadly. … To the extent this count asserts a claim for intentional or reckless behavior, the City is clearly immune. Section 2744.02(b) provides exceptions to political subdivision liability only for certain negligent acts.

Crable v. City of Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 16, 2024

’s ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To overcome qualified immunity, Crable “must plausibly allege facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Wooden v. Chambers-Smith

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 12, 2025

Defendants cite Eleventh Amendment immunity rather than sovereign immunity. … Ohio) (finding the constitutionality of the control-number policy “far from well-settled” and denying qualified immunity at the pleading stage), and Straughter v. Eddy, 2023 WL 6290069, at *4 (S.D.

Watkins v. Bowerman

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2024

In any event, under the qualified immunity doctrine that the Supreme Court proclaimed in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), Piotrowski is entitled to qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiff must also show that his violated rights were clearly established. He has not done so.

Miller v. City of Shaker Heights, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 5, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendant, Officer Smith contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity on □□□□□□□□□□□ -16- claims. … “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.

Gannon v. Medina Township

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 1, 2022

Defendants argue that Officer Gibbons is entitled to qualified immunity because (1) his actions did not violate Gannon’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force, and (2) it was not clearly established at the … 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]

Ortiz

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

But Defendants fail to explain how a 30-day extension will prejudice defendants with a qualified immunity defense. Rather, Wesley v. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991), merely observed that qualified immunity may spare defendants from “unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a long drawn out lawsuit.” .

United States v. Royal Geropsychiatric Services, Inc.

8 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 1998

[W]e see no reason to allow claimants to proceed against private agencies when they clearly cannot proceed against federal agencies. 903 F.2d at 487-88. … This is a waiver of sovereign immunity for those actions specified in the Act.

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

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 2024

Roth and Randles are entitled to qualified Immunity. … A government official defendant in a section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Sayre v. United States

282 F. Supp. 175 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 17, 1967

Defendant City urges that the establishment and execution of an urban renewal program even if negligently carried on is a governmental function not actionable under Ohio’s rule of sovereign immunity. … No claim is made that would qualify as operational negligence. This is understandable.

Wheatt v. City of East Cleveland

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 29, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit.36 To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established … City of Warren that police officers’ shared obligation to turn over exculpatory materials was clearly established in August 1990.42 Thus, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this

Salem v. City of Akron

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 2020

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from civil liability unless the officers (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time … Thus, in evaluating whether a constitutional right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, “we must examine the particular situation that [the defendant officers] confronted and ask whether the law clearly

Salem v. City of Akron

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

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from civil liability unless the officers (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time … Thus, in evaluating whether a constitutional right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, “we must examine the particular situation that [the defendant officers] confronted and ask whether the law clearly

Hall v. United Labs, Inc.

31 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 24, 1998

However, defamation is subject to the defense of qualified privilege. … Clearly, Defendants had a qualified privilege to communicate the positive results of hall’s drug test to Schwebel.

Heller v. Chambers-Smith

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

immunity. … As to the assertion of qualified immunity, “if the complaint fails to allege facts plausibly showing the violation of a constitutional right (regardless of whether that right was clearly established), granting qualified

Welch v. Ashtabula County Children Services Board

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 6, 2023

Plaintiffs also argue that qualified immunity is not available because clearly established Fourth Amendment law prohibits the unreasonable seizure of a minor by the state. … Plaintiffs further dispute that “qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.02” is applicable. 1.

Colbert v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 25, 2024

immunity. 3. … Plaintiff's Monell claim against Defendants Budish, Leiken, Ivey and Brunello must be dismissed because these Defendants did not violate any Constitutional provision and are entitled to qualified immunity

Moderwell v. Cuyahoga County, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants Budish, Pinkney, Taylor and Carney assert that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … 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.”

Estate of Alfonso C. Askew v. Trumbull County

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 10, 2025

But if a defendant asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, then Farmer applies when the relevant conduct predated Brawner as the analysis ce nters around whether the official “violated law that was clearly … was clearly established as of November 2020.

Palma v. Ashtabula County

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 2, 2021

that right was clearly established at the time it was violated. … As Defendants noted, the Sixth Circuit has held that, “[w]hen federal qualified immunity and Ohio state law immunity under Ohio Rev.