Case law

Bryant v. City of Berea

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 24, 2025

In evaluating whether a constitutional right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, courts “must examine the particular situation that [the defendants] confronted and ask whether the law clearly … immunity analysis, i.e., whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established.

Fort

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2026

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct … Because Fort has failed to establish the Defendants violated his constitutional rights, Weirich and Buck are entitled to qualified immunity, and I need not address whether the law clearly established Fort’s alleged constitutional

Jones v. Evans

932 F. Supp. 204 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 31, 1996

The state court clearly has the right to restrict the travel of convicted individuals within its jurisdiction. … As Lenhart states, “the line had to be drawn somewhere,” and clearly there was a rational basis for setting a 25 mile radius.

Figueroa v. U.S. Postal Service

422 F. Supp. 2d 866 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2006

To bring a tort claim against the Government, the plaintiff must first establish that the Government has waived its sovereign immunity. Lundstrum v. … She clearly did not exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. Plaintiff also alleges that she submitted a second administrative claim to the Postal Service on September 24, 2005.

Smith v. Fair

363 F. Supp. 1021 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 8, 1973

Each and every one of these cases go to establishing a single, simple fact which the defendant has no power to alter— his identity. … The one case in which the Supreme Court allowed the taking of a blood sample not for the purpose of identification, but to establish affirmative real evidence (i. e., blood-alcohol levels) was Schmerber v.

Bower v. Village of Marblehead, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 26, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in the performance of discretionary functions so long ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once an officer raises qualified immunity, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was “‘clearly established’ to the extent that a reasonable person in the

Bojicic v. DeWine

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 31, 2024

Respondents, however, never provided a nonfrivolous explanation for the antecedent question: How, in light of the absolute and qualified immunities indisputably possessed by Defendants, did they violate a clearly established … established right’ is violated, and even qualified immunity is to be denied.”

Edwards v. Van Akin

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2023

“Once the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden falls to the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly … established at the relevant time.”

Moles

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 17, 2026

Defendants] be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, in addition to merits grounds (See ECF #29, pp.27-38, PageID #23 1-#242). … The Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation’s findings with respect to its analysis of qualified immunity on these claims.

Walker v. Comes

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

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions where their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … When a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show “that the challenged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and that the right was so clearly established at the time

Walker v. Danielski

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

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions where their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … When a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show “that the challenged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and that the right was so clearly established at the time

Coleman v. Toys" R" US, Inc.

976 F. Supp. 713 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 20, 1997

Under that framework, plaintiffs in a Title VII action must first establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination by demonstrating that they: 1) are members of a protected class; 2) were qualified for the position; … The Plaintiffs must also satisfy the second element of the McDonnell Douglas test and show that they were qualified for the position — a burden they clearly have failed to meet.

Boddie v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

694 F. Supp. 1304 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 30, 1988

. & Admin.News 1986, p. 3555, clearly indicate that numerous court decisions have “construed and misconstrued” the term “other injurious purposes.” … As a result, *1310 Plaintiff can succeed under the Federal Wiretap Statute only if she can establish a violation of § 1985(3).

Quinn v. Retort

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2020

Qualified Immunity Once a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must demonstrate both that the official violated a constitutional or statutory … 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).

Stoutamire v. Hicks

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

“Once the defendant raises a qualified-immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate both [1] that the challenged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and [2] that the right was so clearly … The Court further agrees that Hicks is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity as Stoutamire’s claim against him for unlawful excessive force by use of pepper spray was a clearly established right.

Darnell v. Northern Can Systems, Inc.

937 F. Supp. 668 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 22, 1995

The McDonnell Douglas/Burdine formula allows the plaintiff to create the inference of discrimination by establishing a prima facie case. … Plaintiff produced no facts to establish that she and the employee with whom she compares herself were similarly situated in all respects.

Burson v. Viking Forge Corp.

661 F. Supp. 2d 794 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2009

And because establishing the applicability of an FLSA exemption is an affirmative defense, [the defendant] has the burden to establish the ... elements by a preponderance of the evidence. III. … Nonetheless, setting and adjusting rates of pay is, indeed, one of the enumerated management activities, and the record clearly establishes that plaintiff regularly recommended raises for the workers on his shift, and that

Dunn v. Pietraszkiewicz

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 23, 2025

But the judge has absolute immunity, such that the Court need not determine whether qualified immunity also bars Plaintiff’s claims. I.B.2. … established constitutional right.”

Anthony

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 20, 2026

To establish failure to train, a plaintiff must allege and prove “prior instances of unconstitutional conduct demonstrating that the [City of Akron] has ignored a history of abuse and was clearly on notice that the training … Here, there is no doubt that the City of Akron qualifies for immunity under Ohio Rev.

Hicks v. Cadle Co.

809 F. Supp. 2d 742 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 19, 2011

The district court had found that the sheriffs deputy was entitled to qualified immunity on the claim, and that a lawful writ of execution (which the deputy appeared to have) automatically entitled him to take possession … It went on to find that the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established and the deputy was simply serving a writ of execution he believed to be valid. Id. at 286 . .