Case law

Michaels v. City of Vermillion

539 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 22, 2008

He is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if this particular right is not ‘clearly established.’ … Manigold, the Sixth Circuit denied qualified immunity, holding that a jury could find that the officer's use of a taser violated the suspect’s “clearly established Fourth Amendment right.”

Triomphe Investors v. City of Northwood

835 F. Supp. 1036 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 29, 1993

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … known that they were violating plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional right.

Novak v. City of Parma

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Seitzinger, 363 F. 3d 645, 648 (7th Cir. 2004) (awarding officer qualified immunity and holding that the officer’s consultation with prosecutor “goes far” to establish qualified immunity); Dixon v.

Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Although Smedley was not entitled to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, the record before the Court on summary judgment establishes he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2023

Dismissing for qualified immunity on this ground is sometimes difficult because the clearly established inquiry may turn on case-specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery.” Id. at 765. … In sum, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is proper when the “complaint establishes the defense.” Siefert v.

Miller v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Both are entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Simpson v. Rivera

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2023

In sum, qualified immunity hinges on: (1) whether there was a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the incident. Saucier v. … Ct. at 8 (exploring qualified immunity’s “clearly established” prong in the context of excessive force claim).

Petsche v. Hruby

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2025

The Individual Defendants assert qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims and statutory immunity under Chapter 2744 on the state law claim. … was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”).

Krites v. Wayne County Schools Career Center Board of Education

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2023

“To avoid the shield of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must properly plead ‘facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of … Defendants assert that Defendant Crain4 “is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because Plaintiff failed to establish that her due process rights were violated.”

Wilson v. Osborn

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 2022

Qualified Immunity Osborn argues that she is entitled to summary judgment with respect to both of Wilson’s claims on the basis of qualified immunity.13 The qualified immunity … “[A]n arresting [officer] is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed

Martin v. City of Eastlake

686 F. Supp. 620 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 18, 1988

Put simply, if a defendant did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. … If a defendant did violate a clearly established constitutional right, he was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Crawford v. Geiger

131 F. Supp. 3d 703 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2015

The Sixth Circuit has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity and related principles: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”

Bettio v. Village of Northfield

775 F. Supp. 1545 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 18, 1991

asserted is clearly established. … As such, there being no clearly established right in existence as to this portion of the claim, Satola and Varga do not lose the protection of qualified immunity here.

Aluizio v. Van Kanegan

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 8, 2025

Qualified Immunity Van Kanegan argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because Aulizio cannot establish a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Ford v. Retter

840 F. Supp. 489 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 6, 1993

The deputies are clearly entitled to qualified immunity.”); Jones v. City of Upper Arlington, 986 F.2d 1421 (6th Cir.1993); Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331 (6th Cir.1993). … It also seems that once you have determined the need for the defense of [qualified immunity], ... as a matter of law ... the officer has acted unreasonably ... and has violated clearly established law. Yates v.

F. Buddie Contracting, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Community College District

31 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability or civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, it is clear that the existence of an authorizing state law does not alter the qualified immunity analysis.

Crawford v. Geiger

996 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2014

/A 4 The Sixth Circuit has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity and related principles: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … Even if there is such right, they argue, that right has yet to be clearly established, so the doctrine of qualified immunity entitles the on scene officers, even if they impaired any such right, to dismissal. i.

Mumford v. Zieba

788 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 1992

Finally, Judge Zieba argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford’s damages claims because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be discharged based on his political affiliations. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In his motion for summary judgment, Judge Zieba contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford’s claim for damages because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be terminated

MacKey v. Cleveland State University

837 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 20, 1993

Once a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must produce additional facts or allegations demonstrating that his constitutional rights were violated and “that these rights were so clearly established … Qualified immunity is available to the Trustees, Flower, Muczyk, and Konstantinos in their individual capacities since their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Sample v. Bailey

337 F. Supp. 2d 1012 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 24, 2004

The qualified immunity doctrine provides “that governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A “Clearly Established” Right? To overcome the bar of quali-fied immunity, a plaintiff must show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.