Case law

Sheets v. Mullins

109 F. Supp. 2d 879 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 15, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Sergeant Mullins contends that if his actions are found to constitute a violation of § 1983, that he is entitled to qualified immunity for such actions. In Harlow v. … Mullins does not enjoy the defense of qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs substantive due process claim. IV.

Chesher v. Neyer

392 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2005

In early 2004, Parrott, Tobias, and the Hamilton County Defendants filed respective Motions for Summary Judgment on the basis of qualified immunity (docs. 156, 167, 172). … The County asserts that Wilson clearly establishes that counties have immunity for the intentional torts committed by their employees (doc. 242).

Ethridge v. Rhodes

268 F. Supp. 83 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 17, 1967

Defendants’ failure to assure qualified minority workers equal access to job opportunities on public construction projects by acquiescing in the discriminatory practices of contractors and craft unions clearly falls within … It must be established that the threatened injury is irreparable and that no other adequate remedy exists.

Pennington v. Bucan

620 F. Supp. 877 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 16, 1985

The defendants have asserted a qualified immunity and under such circumstances the inquiry by a trial court in a motion for summary judgment is different from an inquiry into such a motion under all other circumstances. … The Harlow Court established the standard in a qualified immunity defense.

Paquette v. City of Mason, Ohio

250 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 3, 2002

Defendants also assert that City Manager Lahrmer and Chief Drumm have qualified immunity from all claims (Id.). … Immunities Defendants also argue that City Manager Lahrmer and Chief Drumm have qualified immunity on all claims because they were performing discretionary functions that did not violate clearly established constitutional

Ball ex rel. Burba v. Kasich

244 F. Supp. 3d 662 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2017

In other words, new wrongful conduct, even if it is the same conduct previously alleged, may establish a new cause of action. … Defendants argue that § 1396n cannot be privately enforced by Plaintiffs because its language does not clearly confer an individual right.

Banks v. City of Forest Park

599 F. Supp. 465 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 9, 1984

The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155 (6th Cir.1983), that a prosecutor should enjoy only a qualified immunity for all acts administrative in nature, or in other words, acts outside the prosecutor’s quasijudicial function. … As the Supreme Court noted, the procedural distinction between qualified and absolute immunity is significant as the latter defeats the lawsuit at the outset, while application of the former must await a factual determination

Woods v. Miamisburg City Schools

254 F. Supp. 2d 868 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 4, 2003

New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), or the absence of qualified immunity for Officer Mitchell. 6 *876 3. … She states: Because Defendant Mitchell’s refusal to act was interpreted by Plaintiffs harassers as a free license to continue their activity, Defendant Mitchell’s refusal to act qualifies as an exception to immunity under

Balderaz v. Porter

578 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 14, 1983

Those Defendants can rely on qualified immunity, an affirmative de-' fense which must be pleaded and proved by Defendants. Alexander v. Alexander, 706 F.2d 751, 754 (6th Cir.1983). … Such qualified immunity is now governed by the “objective reasonableness of an officials’ conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” Harlow v.

Allen v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services

697 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2010

The Court eliminated the subjective component formerly applied to determine qualified immunity, and established a test that turns on “the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by deference to clearly … Turning to the instant case, the Court finds that this high threshold for surrendering qualified immunity has not been met.

J.D. Partnership v. Berlin Township Board of Trustees

412 F. Supp. 2d 772 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 2005

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ admissions establish that the Court’s earlier Order is clearly erroneous. (Doc. # 121 at 2). … As such, Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to judgment on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 equal protection claim because of qualified immunity is DENIED. (Doc. # 99). C.

Doe v. Miami University

247 F. Supp. 3d 875 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 2017

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the right was “clearly established.”

Powell v. Morris

184 F.R.D. 591 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 3, 1998

A person seeking relief under the ADA for termination must establish (1) that she is a disabled person within the meaning of the Act; (2) that she is qualified to perform the essential functions of her job with or without … This Court agrees. *597 First, this Court lacks jurisdiction with regard to Plaintiffs state law claims against Defendants Morrison, Shutte and Wamsley in their individual capacities because of immunity established by Ohio

Reeb v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation

203 F.R.D. 315 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 25, 2001

Immunity The Defendant contends that BeCI has Eleventh Amendment immunity from the Plaintiffs’ state law claims. … The Defendant has not attempted to claim immunity as to this claim. B.

Norris v. Principi

254 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 2003

Avery Dennison Corporation, 104 F.3d 858 , 862 (6th Cir.1997), clearly establishes that, after a trial on the merits, a reviewing court should not focus on the elements of the prima facie case but should assess the ultimate … adverse employment decision,” (3) "that [he] was qualified for the position,” and (4) "that [he] was replaced by a person outside of the protected class.”

Fridley v. Horrigs

162 F. Supp. 2d 772 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 2, 2000

In addition, Plaintiff sought summary judgment on the Defendants’ defense that they were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity has two components, to wit: that a specific constitutional right of the plaintiff was violated, and that the right was clearly established at the time of the incident. See e.g., Wilson v.

Barrett v. Outlet Broadcasting, Inc.

22 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 1997

Qualified Immunity The City Defendants argue that Defendants Panzera, Ceckitti, and Barnes are entitled to qualified immunity. … In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment based upon the defense of qualified immunity, a § 1983 plaintiff must state a claim for a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and produce evidence to

Martin v. Taft

222 F. Supp. 2d 940 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 19, 2002

But when a complaint omits facts that, if they existed, would clearly dominate the case, it seems fair to assume that those facts do not exist. Id. … Plaintiffs are prepared to introduce materials to establish this assertion. (See Mem.

Hartman v. Asset Acceptance Corp.

467 F. Supp. 2d 769 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2004

Trial witness immunity from defamation suits was well established at common law when the 1871 Civil Rights Act was passed. … There, the Court held a police officer’s affidavit in support of an arrest warrant was entitled to only qualified, not absolute immunity, because at common law a complaining witness was not immunized from tort liability for

Horton

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 8, 2026

Defendants argue that Detective Walker is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claims based on qualified immunity because her conduct did not violate Horton’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Because the right was clearly established as early as 1990, it was clearly established at the time of Detective Walker’s actions in this case, and she is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.