Case law

Eisnnicher v. Bob Evans Farms Restaurants

310 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2004

Qualified Immunity According to 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 … “Thus, when a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish that a reasonable officer in the

Hines v. Ohio State University

3 F. Supp. 2d 859 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 1, 1998

The objective of this enactment is clearly ‘appropriate legislation’ under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 607 (emphasis added). … Thus, in order to *874 establish a prima facie case, Plaintiff must show the following: a) membership in the protected class (between the ages of 40 and 70); b) that she applied and was qualified for a promotion; c) despite

Brotherton v. Cleveland

908 F. Supp. 502 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 27, 1995

Applying the rationale behind these decisions, we find that like qualified immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity should not be extended to private parties. … The Supreme Court reasoned that qualified immunity was established to allow public officials “to serve the public good or to ensure that talented candidates were not deterred by the threat of damages suits from entering public

Fisher v. City of Cincinnati

753 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 13, 1990

Defendants argue that, in order to overcome the hurdle of qualified immunity, plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants’ conduct violated clearly established law. … rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken.

Dever v. Kelly

566 F. Supp. 2d 703 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 2008

Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded a qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … A fortiori, no such constitutional rights were clearly established on that date and the Defendant Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity from any § 1983 liability for their acts.

Denton v. Twyford

142 F.R.D. 140 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 29, 1992

All defendants have asserted qualified immunity from suit in their answer. … All of the defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity in their answer.

May v. City of Springfield

492 F. Supp. 2d 795 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 23, 2005

Accordingly, the Court turns to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, to determine if the constitutional right was clearly established. In Sample v. … turn to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established.

Miller v. City of Columbus

920 F. Supp. 807 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 1996

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants Mathys and Miller assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on plaintiffs section 1983 claims. Under the qualified immunity doctrine outlined in Harlow v. … The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the contours of the right being asserted were clearly established.

Neinast v. Board of Trustees of the Columbus Metropolitan Library

190 F. Supp. 2d 1040 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 27, 2002

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants Black and Johnson argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The affirmative defense of qualified, or good faith, immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Labensky v. Cornwell

763 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity Cornwell asserts that qualified immunity protects him from being liable to Labensky. Qualified Immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages. … When qualified immunity is invoked, unless a defendant’s conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a “reasonable person would have known,” courts shall not require him to stand trial

Morrison v. Board of Trustees of Green Tp.

529 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 29, 2007

“The right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes.” Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir.2002) (citing Kostrzewa v. … Qualified immunity questions involve a two-part analysis: first, whether the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right; and second, whether the right was clearly established. Saucier v.

Dehlendorf v. City of Gahanna, Ohio

786 F. Supp. 2d 1358 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 2011

Evans (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 633, 636 , 630 N.E.2d 75 , we set forth the necessary elements which a defendant must prove in order to enjoy immunity: “In order to qualify for this privilege, a defendant must establish that … In addition, the court in Olsen aptly pointed out that extending DiCorpo to statements to police would sweep aside decades of well-established Ohio jurisprudence applying only qualified immunity to such statements. 1997 WL

Nerswick v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

692 F. Supp. 2d 866 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2010

Entitlement to qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Assuming the qualified immunity defense is available to these defendants as private actors, they are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis must be resolved in

Hainey v. Parrott

617 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 20, 2007

Parrott, in his individual capacity, was entitled to qualified immunity from suit; and 4) *672 whether Dr. Parrott, in his individual capacity, was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. … This recommendation, however, is clearly not binding on the Court.

Ashiegbu v. Purviance

74 F. Supp. 2d 740 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 17, 1998

Qualified Immunity Last, Defendant claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity for her actions with respect to Plaintiffs claims. … As the Supreme Court noted, “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of trial.”

Wells v. City of Dayton

495 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 21, 2006

In the context of a claim of qualified immunity in a case arising out of the alleged use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court explained: When confronted with a claim .of qualified immunity … In Brosseau , the Supreme Court restated the analytical framework that is applicable to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry: Qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even

Newsome v. Erwin

137 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 2000

To overcome Erwin’s qualified immunity defense, Newsome must allege facts establishing: (1) that Erwin violated a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) that a reasonable official would have known that his or her … He also has alleged facts that could defeat Erwin’s qualified immunity defense.

Estate of Bing v. City of Whitehall, Ohio

373 F. Supp. 2d 770 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 22, 2005

Qualified Immunity As a threshold matter, this Court must determine whether the police officers in this case are protected by qualified immunity. … According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

McCoy v. Burns

756 F. Supp. 2d 868 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2010

In moving for summary judgment, Defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs rights under Payton were clearly established at the time of his arrest. Accordingly, Defendants cannot enjoy qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs first claim.

Moon v. Fischer

215 F. Supp. 3d 594 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 18, 2016

“Qualified immunity shields individual government officials from liability *598 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Cty. of Delaware, 348 Fed.Appx. 595 , 599 (2d Cir. 2009). 4 Further, there is no clearly established law as to how such notice must be given; certainly, there is no clearly established due process right to personal service