Case law

Ward v. County of Cuyahoga

721 F. Supp. 2d 677 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 29, 2010

clearly established in the context of the case. … Accordingly, because plaintiffs have shown facts that establish a violation of a constitutional right, and that right was clearly established, defendant Sparks’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity is denied

Turner v. City of Toledo

671 F. Supp. 2d 967 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 2, 2009

See Phelps, *975 286 F.3d at 299 (“The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation … In its earlier opinion, the Court rejected this argument by noting that “unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Rose v. Village of Peninsula

875 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 27, 1995

Thus, to determine if defendants Ruoff or Redmon violated any clearly established constitutional rights such that they would not be entitled to rely on qualified immunity, it is necessary for the Court to decide (1) what … It is not these general rights, however, but rather “particularized rights” that plaintiff must show were clearly established in order to avoid the defense of qualified immunity.

Irvin v. City of Shaker Heights

809 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2011

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known were in existence. … The court therefore finds that qualified immunity is not appropriate because Irvin’s account supports a finding that the backup officers violated a clearly established constitutional right to be free from gratuitous beating

Coy Ex Rel. Coy v. Board of Education of the North Canton City Schools

205 F. Supp. 2d 791 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 29, 2002

See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (stating that qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The defendants assert qualified immunity on the premise that the right they allegedly violated was not clearly established.

Reynolds v. Guerra

670 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the excessive force claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs excessive force claim. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a clearly established constitutional violation. 2.

Carmichael v. City of Cleveland

881 F. Supp. 2d 833 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 1, 2012

Even if not entitled to absolute immunity, a prosecuting attorney may claim qualified immunity. … Once qualified immunity is raised as a defense, it is Plaintiff's burden to show a constitutional violation to defeat qualified immunity.

Palshook v. Jarrett

120 F. Supp. 2d 641 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 11, 2000

violate clearly established rights.’ ” Id. at 1161 (internal citations omitted). … Thus, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because genuine issues of material fact exists as to whether defendants actually violated plaintiffs clearly established rights, and if so, whether the

Stevens v. Trumbull County Sheriffs' Department

63 F. Supp. 2d 851 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendant Norman Olson asserts that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified immunity. … Because no clearly established constitutional right existed at the time the alleged violation occurred, Defendant Olson is entitled to qualified immunity- State Claims This Court finds that genuine issues of material fact

Miller v. Village of Boston Heights

65 F. Supp. 2d 674 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 20, 1999

The right to be free from the use of excessive force is clearly established under the Fourth Amendment for purposes of a claim of qualified immunity. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 . … Having found a potential constitutional violation of a clearly established right, the Court must now consider the final step of the qualified immunity analysis.

Karchin v. Metzenbaum

587 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 1983

The immunity defense which may be raised by a government official is limited to protection against challenges to his conduct while performing an official function and with no violation of clearly established law. … The second inquiry was the extent to which the official reasonably could have known that his conduct would violate clearly established law.

Blythe v. Schlievert

245 F. Supp. 3d 959 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 2017

One court has recently summarized Sixth Circuit qualified immunity law: The Supreme Court has repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality, since doing so avoids the crucial … Those which do consider qualified immunity vis-a-vis a § 1983 claim have upheld the defendants’ immunity claim. Doe v.

Jones v. Beatty

4 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 30, 1998

The next step in a qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the alleged violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … The right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and to be free from the use of excessive force, is clearly established under the Fourth Amendment for purposes of a claim of qualified immunity. 4 Therefore, the next inquiry

Jones v. Sandusky County

889 F. Supp. 2d 990 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Dickerson v. … (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of Defendants’ alleged misconduct.

Bremiller v. Cleveland Psychiatric Institute

879 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 1995

Defendants Are Not Entitled To Qualified Immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity may operate to protect state officials sued as individuals in civil rights actions. … Once defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must produce additional facts or allegations demonstrating that her constitutional rights were violated and “that these rights were so clearly established

Dye v. City of Warren

367 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 2005

Reasonableness of Force, Constitutional Deprivation and Qualified Immunity with Regard to Chief Mandopoulos. Mr. … Dye did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and, therefore, is shielded by qualified immunity.

Williams v. Nice

58 F. Supp. 3d 833 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2014

immunity because he did not violate clearly established federal law.” … To prevail on her underlying tort claims, Williams “must defeat the presumption of immunity.” Id. The Court adopts its qualified immunity analysis herein as it is equally applicable to a claim of state immunity.

Matasic v. City of Campbell, Ohio

954 F. Supp. 156 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 1997

[the] clearly established constitutional rights.” … Individual claims of immunity must be analyzed on a fact-specific, case-by-ease basis to determine whether the constitutional rights were so clearly established when the alleged misconduct was committed that any official

Dudley v. Eden

49 F. Supp. 2d 581 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 4, 1999

assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time.” … For purposes of qualified-immunity analysis, it is first important to note that Dudley has alleged a violation of his clearly established right to be free from the use of excessive force.

Williams v. City of Canton

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2025

To overcome Officer Huber’s qualified immunity defense, Plaintiff must plausibly plead facts showing 1) that Officer Huber violated a constitutional right and 2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the … Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014) (holding “[o]ur qualified-immunity cases illustrate the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when, as here, a court decides only the clearly- established prong