Case law

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

Zickes v. Cuyahoga County

207 F. Supp. 3d 769 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 16, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … would have known.’ ” 99 To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court looks to whether the plaintiff (1) presents facts that make out a violation of “a clearly established constitutional right,” and if so, (

Russell v. Steck

851 F. Supp. 859 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 10, 1994

A state official is entitled to qualified immunity if his allegedly unlawful conduct was objectively reasonable when considered in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the challenged conduct … Clearly Established Rights.

EJS PROPERTIES, LLC v. City of Toledo

651 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2009

Qualified Immunity McCloskey asserts qualified immunity in response to plaintiffs § 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. A.

Rodriguez v. City of Cleveland

619 F. Supp. 2d 461 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 1, 2009

An a matter of law, qualified immunity shields a state actor from civil damages in appropriate cases: Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, … action places it beyond the scope of a police officer’s qualified immunity if the right retaliated against was clearly established,” DeLoach v.

Hussein v. City of Perrysburg

647 F. Supp. 2d 838 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 10, 2009

Qualified Immunity The Husseins sue Thielen and Klag in their individual capacity, and as such, the defendants may be entitled to qualified immunity. … Based on the following, I find the two constitutional violations in issue to be clearly established such that Thielen and Klag are not entitled to qualified immunity- *857 With regard to the Husseins’ procedural due process

Sinick v. County of Summit

196 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 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 … Objectively Unreasonable Even if the Defendants violated Plaintiff Sinick’s constitutional rights, and those rights were clearly established at the time, the Defendants will nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity

Bremiller v. Cleveland Psychiatric Institute

898 F. Supp. 572 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 1995

Furthermore, Defendants argue that this Court erred in applying Second Circuit caselaw to meet the clearly-established test. In order to deny Defendants qualified immunity, this Court must find two things. … Defendants’ alleged actions defeat any entitlement to qualified immunity.

Noffsinger v. Landers

196 F. Supp. 3d 746 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 22, 2016

if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In short, to decide whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity a court must determine whether plaintiff has shown the official violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” when he or

Blair v. City of Cleveland

148 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 29, 2000

Qualified Immunity Even if the officers’ determination were incorrect, they are entitled to immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting officers possessed, a reasonable officer could … Qualified Immunity The court then examines whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Wright v. City of Canton, Ohio

138 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 9, 2001

But state actors lose this immunity when they violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (holding that qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Fann v. City of Cleveland, Ohio

616 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 1985

clearly established at the time of the conduct in issue.” … Because those defendants would be entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity, the motion is denied. VI.

Daughenbaugh v. City of Tiffin

949 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 1996

Qualified Immunity Even if the defendants in this ease violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, the officers are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … Thus, to prevail in the face of a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must show that: 1) he “has a clearly established statutory or constitutional right,” Megenity v.

Fiordalisi v. Zubek

342 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 27, 2004

Because Zubek invokes qualified immunity, Fiordalisi must also show that there is a genuine issue as whether Zubek is immune. C. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)] clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary judgment stage is a 'final' judgment

Rose v. Village of Peninsula

839 F. Supp. 517 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 1, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity: government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The relevant question in determining whether the defense of qualified immunity exists is whether the conduct complained of constituted a clearly established violation of statutory or constitutional law at the time it occurred

Buckner v. Gilliland

846 F. Supp. 2d 799 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2012

If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of defamation, the defendant may invoke a conditional or qualified privilege. (Id.) … Accordingly, dismissal of the defamation claim is not warranted on the basis of either statutory immunity or qualified privilege.

Peart v. SENECA COUNTY

808 F. Supp. 2d 1028 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants Steyer, Nutter, Sauber, and Bridinger assert a qualified immunity defense for claims against them in their individual capacity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Hughes v. City of North Olmsted

894 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 3, 1995

When a defendant raises the issue of qualified immunity in the context of a summary judgment motion, the plaintiff “must allege facts sufficient to indicate that the act in question violated clearly established law.” … Accordingly, because the right is clearly established and a reasonable employer would understand that the investigation violates the right, an employer may not invoke qualified immunity when the employer investigates matters

Michel v. Beutler

888 F. Supp. 2d 861 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 3, 2012

That being so, I find the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity to be without merit. The Sixth Circuit enunciated the elements of qualified immunity in Cherrington v. … Despite the defendants’ contentions about qualified immunity, the law is and has long been clearly established with regard to the constitutional violations which a jury could find the defendants perpetrated, namely: • Presenting

MacMillan v. City of Rocky River

748 F. Supp. 1241 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 1990

The applicability of qualified immunity turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the government official’s action “assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … “On summary judgement, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred.