Case law

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

Couzens v. City of Forest Park, OH

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 26, 2023

violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.” … “Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Silberstein v.

Brown v. O'Connor

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 27, 2024

They argue Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief and that the Manning and Laing are entitled to qualified immunity and the City of Cincinnati to sovereign immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (“[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Roberts v. Ross

680 F. Supp. 1144 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 1987

As this Court found that Defendant Ross is entitled to absolute immunity, the question of his qualified immunity is rendered immaterial. … Defendant Ross’ conduct in causing the unlawful arrest of Plaintiff does “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Burr v. Burns

439 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 7, 2006

in light of the clearly establish constitutional rights.” … Thus, the question of whether Officers Burns and Marti are shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity turns on (1) whether the rights were clearly established to the extent that Officers Burns and Marti

Ortiz v. Voinovich

211 F. Supp. 2d 917 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2002

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 … 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 defendant

Thompson v. Ohio State University

92 F. Supp. 3d 719 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 20, 2015

Schweik-hart’s additional argument that she is entitled to qualified immunity. C. … Courts use a two-step analysis to address a government official’s qualified immunity defense.

Thrope v. State of Ohio

19 F. Supp. 2d 816 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 1998

Since Congress clearly intended to abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity and acted pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court finds that the ADA represents an effective abrogation of the Eleventh Amendment. … The fact that monies are directed to the BMV fund, however, does not establish that the fees were intended as a general revenue-raising measure.

Everett v. United States

492 F. Supp. 318 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 13, 1980

On appeal the Third Circuit reversed, finding that Feres accords an individual defendant at best a qualified, rather than an absolute immunity from suit. … Although a qualified immunity from damages liability should be the general rule for executive officials charged with constitutional violations, our decisions recognize that there are some officials whose special functions

Cook v. Barry

718 F. Supp. 632 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendant WCDHS presents an immunity defense in its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) established an objective qualified immunity standard under which government officials are immune from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not

Grooms v. Marshall

142 F. Supp. 2d 927 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 2001

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions unless their - actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … The Court is therefore not able to grant Defendants qualified immunity at this juncture.

Gratsch v. Hamilton County Sheriff's Department

91 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 2000

Qualified Immunity 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 … The Court now evaluates whether Defendants should have qualified immunity on this claim.

GASPERS v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services

627 F. Supp. 2d 832 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 8, 2009

In the alternative, the individual defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their actions did not violate clearly established law because plaintiffs can point to no binding decision … As this particular right alleged by Aldine Gaspers was not clearly established at the time of her transfer, defendants Stickrath and Morbitzer are entitled to qualified immunity on the claim brought against them in their

Hoover v. Radabaugh

123 F. Supp. 2d 412 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 27, 2000

Qualified Immunity The Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity.

Harless v. City of Columbus

183 F. Supp. 2d 1024 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 4, 2002

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … Therefore, the Court DENIES Officer Bahgat’s request for qualified immunity. Y.

Dillion v. University Hospital

715 F. Supp. 1384 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 21, 1989

This concept was derived from the principles of sovereign immunity which are a constitutional limitation upon the Federal Judicial powers established in Article III. … The State of Ohio has clearly and unequivocally set forth in Ohio Revised Code § 2743.02 that it has waived its immunity and consented to be sued only in the Court of Claims.

Davie v. Wingard

958 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 6, 1997

“The key inquiry in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … On summary judgment, the plaintiff’s allegations must state a claim of violation of a clearly established law.

Kerr v. Hurd

694 F. Supp. 2d 817 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 15, 2010

The Sixth Circuit held that the speech in which the professor engaged was on a matter of *842 public concern and that his right to speak on such subjects was clearly established; a denial of qualified immunity to the discharging … 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

Hubbard v. City of Middletown

782 F. Supp. 1573 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 5, 1990

Qualified Immunity Public officials may be “shielded 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 … Although the resolution of qualified immunity for government officials is a question of law (Poe, 853 F.2d at 424 ), that question must be determined on established facts in a particular case.

Nihiser v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

979 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 6, 1997

The state of Ohio has not clearly waived its sovereign immunity from suit in the ease of claims brought under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. … The first prong of the Seminole test is clearly satisfied here.