Case law

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.

Caton v. Salamon

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 2024

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct violated a constitutional right, but that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200–201.

McLaurin v. Fischer

595 F. Supp. 318 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 26, 1983

He argues that he is entitled to a qualified immunity from suit under that statute. … In such a case, qualified immunity would be unavailable. See Harlow, supra. Because this immunity question turns on factual determinations, summary judgment is precluded.

Gunasekera v. Irwin

748 F. Supp. 2d 816 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 6, 2010

Gunasekera’s additional claims for equitable relief were also barred by qualified immunity. Dr. … established for purposes of qualified immunity could not be decided on the undeveloped factual record that existed at the time.

GUNASEKERA v. Irwin

774 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 2011

claims for equitable relief were also barred by qualified immunity. … established for purposes of qualified immunity could not be decided on the undeveloped factual record that existed at the time.

Thorne v. Steubenville Police Officer

463 F. Supp. 2d 760 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 28, 2006

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Thus, the question of whether Officers Karovic and Lelies are shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity turns on: (1) whether the rights were clearly established to the extent that Officers Karovic

Perrea v. Cincinnati Public Schools

709 F. Supp. 2d 628 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 20, 2010

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct violated a constitutional right, but that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. Courts can examine either issue first. … For these reasons, the Court concludes that Hahn did not violate a clearly established right and she is entitled to qualified immunity on Perrea’s equal protection claim. B.

Meyers v. City of Cincinnati

728 F. Supp. 477 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 4, 1990

Plaintiff must assert a particular and clearly established violation of his constitutional rights to prevail against a claim of qualified immunity. Garvie v. Jackson, 845 F.2d 647, 649-50 (6th Cir.1988). … Defendants are' not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s claim that he was deprived of such rights since they were clearly established at the time of his demotion.

Odom v. Wilson

517 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 26, 1981

The Court did, however, also conclude that court reporters and clerks might have an absolute defense to a § 1983 action, under a qualified immunity. … On remand, the trial court was instructed to determine if the appellee-re-porter had “properly raised and established”. the elements of the qualified immunity defense. Id.

Tyus v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

606 F. Supp. 239 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 1985

Defendants claim that they are shielded from suit in this case by the doctrine of “qualified immunity.” … Based on the present record, the Court cannot conclude that, as a matter of law, defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Dunnom v. Bennett

290 F. Supp. 2d 860 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 1, 2003

David Bennett’s Assertion of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects “government officials acting in their official capacities from damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory … Such immunity is an entitlement not to stand *873 trial, not a defense from liability. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps.

Lupo v. Voinovich

858 F. Supp. 699 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 22, 1994

immunity. … The Court also notes that Lupo seeks equitable and declaratory relief, neither of which is affected by an assertion of qualified immunity.

Phelps v. Coy

164 F. Supp. 2d 961 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 15, 2000

If the constitutional right “the government official allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official … The second and final question presented by a claim of qualified immunity is whether the right in question has been clearly established.

Wilson v. Columbus Board of Education

589 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2008

Qualiñed 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 … Defendant Sisco is thus not entitled to qualified immunity.

Lash v. City of Union, Ohio

104 F. Supp. 2d 866 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2000

If the constitutional right “the government official allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official … It is axiomatic that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not prevent a District Court from enjoining a public official. Collyer v.

Gischel v. Univ. of Cincinnati

302 F. Supp. 3d 961 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 5, 2018

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, courts must ask whether the government official's conduct violated a constitutional right, and if yes, whether the specific right violated was clearly established. … "Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223 , 232, 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). 1.

Campbell v. City of Springboro, Ohio

788 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 26, 2011

Violation of Clearly Established Right “[A]n arresting agent 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 … clearly established law.

Wallin v. Cincinnati Eye Bank for Sight Restoration, Inc.

733 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 1990

may be asserted to establish nonliabili *1154 ty. … a qualified individual to do so.

Clements-Jeffrey v. City of Springfield, Ohio

810 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 22, 2011

Nevertheless, because the law in this area is not clearly established, the Court finds that Ashworth and Lopez are entitled to qualified immunity on the ECPA claim. iv. … Because the law is not clearly established, Ashworth and Lo *878 pez are entitled to qualified immunity on the ECPA claims. 3. SCA Claim The factual and legal basis for Plaintiffs’ SCA claim is somewhat cloudy.

Gumpl v. Seiter

689 F. Supp. 754 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 3, 1987

Summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity must also be denied at this point. The Supreme Court has instructed the Court in Anderson v. … The law is clearly established that inmates are entitled to recreation. The issue of fact remaining is whether the present recreational policy, which does not meet minimal standards, is peneologically justified.