Case law

Maynard v. JACKSON COUNTY OHIO

706 F. Supp. 2d 817 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 12, 2010

Section 1988 Issues Not Raised The defendants spend a portion of their memorandum outlining the contours of the qualified immunity doctrine. … Because the defendants’s qualified immunity argument focuses solely on issues relating to whether a jury could find a Fourth Amendment violation here, the Court will not address this aspect of qualified immunity.

Alexander v. Haymon

254 F. Supp. 2d 820 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 14, 2003

is per se violative of a “clearly established” right. … qualified immunity, given that the Plaintiffs cannot point to a clearly settled body of law demonstrating that their actions were unreasonable.

CABANISS EX REL. CABANISS v. City of Riverside

497 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 20, 2006

The Supreme Court has held that government officials are protected by qualified immunity, if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … step analysis in determining when qualified immunity applies.

Stengel v. City of Columbus

737 F. Supp. 1460 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 29, 1989

The defense of qualified immunity requires focusing on the objective legal reasonableness of the official’s actions in light of clearly established law. Harlow v. … In fact, plaintiffs’ rights in this situation are *1467 not clearly established by the case law existing at the time.

Chase v. Theodore Mayer Bros.

592 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 14, 1983

We feel that the establishment of any such warranty that national policy goals have been attained or that those goals are being maintained is best left to that branch of government which established the objectives. … The latter remedy is clearly equitable in nature, but since it involves a money recovery, we think it prudent to discuss and dispose of the sovereign immunity issue raised by the United States. 3 .

Kennedy v. City of Zanesville, OH

505 F. Supp. 2d 456 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 7, 2007

Immunity a. Qualified Immunity (individual County Defendants) Qualified immunity, or “good faith” immunity, is an affirmative defense that the defendant officer must raise. Siegert v. … conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Nathan v. Ohio State University

984 F. Supp. 2d 789 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 29, 2013

To establish a prima facie claim of gender discrimination, a plaintiff must show that she: (1) is a member of the protected class; (2) suffered an adverse employment action; (3) was qualified for the position; and (4) was … The state of Ohio has not clearly waived its sovereign immunity from suit in the case of claims brought under the FMLA. Thomson v. Ohio State Univ. Hosp., 5 F.Supp.2d 574, 576 (S.D.Ohio 1998) (Graham, J.).

Brooks v. Skinner

139 F. Supp. 3d 869 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 15, 2015

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “[Government officials performing discretionary functions [are entitled to] , .a qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages liability as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought … Accordingly, Hasselbusch- and Skinner are not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ equal protection claims.

Wade v. Bethesda Hospital

356 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 1973

The defendants Daw and Bethesda are-clearly not public officials, nor were not expressedly directed by Gary to take any action. … Recent cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit establish, as one of the essential elements of an action under § 1985(3), that the claimed invidious discriminatory intent behind the conspiracy must

Higginbotham v. Ohio Department of Mental Health

412 F. Supp. 2d 806 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2005

Additionally, Defendants contend that no basis exists for a separate retaliation claim, and that the individual defendants have qualified immunity from suit. … In order to maintain uniformity in application of federal statutes, state tolling and saving provisions do not apply to limitation periods established by Congress. See Johnson v. Railway Exp.

Marcum v. Board of Education of Bloom-Carroll Local School District

727 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2010

Fenik also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … 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 rights of which

Kelly v. Forest Hills Local School District Board of Education

19 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 1998

These Defendants also assert the defense of qualified immunity in response to Plaintiffs retaliation claim. … However, qualified immunity is not available if a public official’s alleged conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Brooks v. Dent

795 F. Supp. 2d 694 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 10, 2011

Qualified Immunity Lastly, Dent asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1981 claim against him in his individual capacity. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established. Pearson v.

Taft, Ingalls & Co. v. Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 100

202 F. Supp. 317 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 20, 1962

. *318 The underlying philosophy in vesting jurisdiction in the federal courts in matters affecting commerce among the several states is felt to be precisely what is clearly stated by that language, and is f ulsomely defined … It purports to reach only what may be deemed to burden or obstruct that commerce and, thus qualified, it must be construed as contemplating the exercise of control within constitutional bounds.

Morrow v. Bassman

515 F. Supp. 587 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 3, 1981

Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), the Supreme Court held that only qualified immunity (predicated upon good faith in misconduct or mere error in judgment) would be available for federal administrators … [W]e think that the risk of an unconstitutional act by one presiding at an agency hearing is clearly outweighed by the importance of preserving the independent judgment of these men and women.

Conant

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 27, 2026

to qualified immunity. … To decide whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine whether the alleged conduct violated a constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established. Jones v.

Smith v. Miami Valley Hospital

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 24, 2024

No. 16 at PageID 133. 3 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … that it cannot be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.’”

Sampson v. City of Xenia

108 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 1999

In response to Sampson’s Complaint, the individual Defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. … In determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must engage in a two-step inquiry.

Gaunt Ex Rel. Gaunt v. Brown

341 F. Supp. 1187 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 6, 1972

The “fencing out” and other cases are not in point because they involved regulations of the suffrage not immune from the impact of the Equal Protection Clause. As stated by Mr. … Mitchell, supra, 400 U.S. at 294 , 91 S.Ct. at 349 : “To be sure, recent decisions have established that state action regulating suffrage is not immune from the impact of the Equal Protection Clause.

Shuttlesworth v. Housing Opportunities Made Equal

873 F. Supp. 1069 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 8, 1994

Clearly, 18 U.S.C. § 224’s prohibition on bribery in sporting contests is inapplicable to Plaintiffs allegations. … O’Neill, 867 F.2d.589, 590 (10th Cir.1989) (“It is well settled that the United States and its employees, sued in their official capacities, are immune from suit unless sovereign immunity has been waived”).