Case law

Marsilio v. Vigluicci

924 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 14, 2013

Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden of establishing that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 20, p. 6. … that was clearly established at the time in question.

Hunt v. City of Toledo Law Department

881 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 30, 2012

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court established a two part test for determining the applicability of qualified immunity in § 1983 actions. … As a general rule, the default position is that qualified immunity applies.

MacK v. Holcomb

446 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 12, 2006

If plaintiff sufficiently alleges a constitutional violation, defendant may be entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established when the violation occurred. Id. … Clearly Established Law The issue for purposes of qualified immunity is whether Mack’s First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Thomas v. Arnold

696 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 2010

Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Crooks Johnson held that an officer’s statement that he observed the plaintiffs car cross the center line was sufficient to establish probable cause and qualified immunity.

Pullin v. City of Canton

133 F. Supp. 2d 1045 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 9, 2001

Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (holding that qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … seizures is, as a general matter, clearly established.

Blair v. City of Cleveland

148 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 8, 2000

is a public official asserting a qualified immunity defense. … However, assuming the officers succeed in their appeal of this court’s order, it could be determined that a reasonable officer would not have known that his actions violated a clearly-established right, and that the officers

Dohner v. Neff

240 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2002

Qualified Immunity In Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity for Neff To find a clearly established constitutional right, a district court must find binding precedent from the Supreme Court, its court of appeals, or itself. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n. v.

Scott v. City of Cleveland

555 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 13, 2008

State actors faced with a civil suit under § 1983 may be immune from liability for damages, but they enjoy a qualified, not absolute, immunity Harlow v. … clearly established.

Kies Ex Rel. Kies v. City of Lima

612 F. Supp. 2d 888 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 2009

Qualified Immunity Officers Ricker and Green assert qualified immunity in response to Kies’ § 1983 claims. … “The third inquiry impacts the analysis when despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and so should still enjoy qualified immunity.” Id.

Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Division

58 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2014

Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving (1) he was deprived of a constitutionally-protected right (2) that was “so clearly established that a reasonable officer … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a plaintiffs claims of constitutional violation “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v.

Slough v. Telb

644 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for civil damages so long as their- conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … No clearly established constitutional right was violated by Defendants entry into Plaintiffs home. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in entering Plaintiffs home. b.

Min Li v. Qi Jiang

38 F. Supp. 3d 870 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 13, 2014

Defendants assert that Li has failed to show that the right in question was “clearly established” as required to defeat a qualified immunity defense. ECF No. 4 at 12. … The qualified immunity defense “shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions [ ] insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Fennell v. Simmons

951 F. Supp. 706 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 3, 1997

right was not clearly established. … established, 7 so as to entitle the defendants to judgment on all of Torcasio’s claims of relief on the basis of qualified immunity.

Stanfield v. City of Lima

244 F. Supp. 3d 638 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2017

Nevertheless, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The second inquiry, whether qualified immunity shields an officer from suit, depends on whether, at the time of the incident, “the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad

Stephens v. City of Akron

729 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 2010

Clearly Established Inquiry The law clearly establishes that an officer may not use deadly force to seize an unarmed suspect. … on the issue of qualified immunity.

Dunn v. Village of Put-In-Bay

291 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 2003

was clearly established at the time that the injury occurred. … The Village and Township, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity. E.

Way v. Shawnee Township

192 F. Supp. 3d 867 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants argue Truesdale is entitled to qualified immunity. *881 Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability. Mitchell v. … was “clearly established” when he or she did so.

Williams v. Crosby

43 F. Supp. 3d 794 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 12, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields from civil liability government officials who perform discretionary functions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Williams is a constitutional violation, it was not clearly established under Circuit precedent in September 2012. R. Williams is entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim.

Sorrells v. Gattison

644 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 1986

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1981), the Supreme Court redefined the qualified immunity doctrine. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 457 U.S. at 815-16 , 102 S.Ct. at 2736-37 .

Van Hull v. Marriott Courtyard

87 F. Supp. 2d 771 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 18, 2000

No Exception Available Assuming Deputy Slough is viewed as a police officer with qualified immunity, plaintiffs have not shown that his immunity should be disregarded. … Officials are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v.