Case law

Lender's Service, Inc. v. Dayton Bar Ass'n

758 F. Supp. 429 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 1991

In order to claim state action immunity, private parties must show that the challenged restraint was “one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy,” California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. … Defendants argue in the alternative that their conduct was protected by state action immunity because the challenged restraint was clearly articulated as state policy and was actively supervised by the state.

Purk v. United States

747 F. Supp. 1243 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 12, 1989

provided through 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (b)(2); however, she would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity. … Furthermore, on the present state of the record, there are simply no facts from which it could be inferred that Defendant Dwyer’s conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights at the time the

Melson v. Kroger Co.

578 F. Supp. 691 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 1983

Such qualified immunity is now governed by the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” Harlow v. … Depending on the facts established at trial, the defense of qualified immunity *700 may be available to the Defendants Bent and Wheeler. 5 Counsel will take note that a conference call will be held at 8:20 a.m. on Monday,

White v. White

839 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 2011

The fact that the Plaintiff has withdrawn her request for monetary relief against persons who have absolute judicial immunity, former Judge Judith A. … She will be given leave to file an amended complaint and, should she decide to do so, she must clearly indicate how she is being deprived of benefits from an ERISA plan, separate and distinct from the actions of the state

Andrus v. City of Cincinnati Police Department

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 9, 2025

But, to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must first show that an officer violated his constitutional rights, and then that the right was clearly established. Silberstein v. … In their Reply, Defendants point out that the Sixth Circuit emphasizes the need for specificity over generality when defining a clearly established right for the purpose of determining qualified immunity.

Taylor v. Hooven

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2025

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 (2009).

Wilkerson

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2026

“Officials seeking the protection of absolute immunity bear the burden of showing that absolute immunity is justified and that qualified immunity does not suffice.” Jackson v. … , unless a plaintiff’s allegations do not ‘plausibly show[ ] a violation of his clearly established rights, then the officer-defendant is entitled to immunity from suit.’”

Neuens v. City of Columbus

169 F. Supp. 2d 780 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 1, 2001

Qualified Immunity Government officials sued in their individual capacities are entitled to seek qualified immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … 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.

Gross v. Village of Minerva Park Village Council

997 F. Supp. 2d 813 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 5, 2014

“[The Sixth Circuit] applies a two-step inquiry to determine qualified immunity, *834 which considers (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … The remaining question, then, is whether that right was clearly established at the time of Gross’ firing in July of 2011. The right to “some kind of hearing” was clearly established by July 2011.

Mosher v. Internal Revenue Service

746 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 8, 1989

This absolute immunity does not extend to claims of constitutional torts, 28 U.S.C. … . # 3, Memo, p. 7), Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Gionis v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone

405 F. Supp. 2d 856 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 14, 2005

of its immunity defense instanter. … Immunity Defendant also claims that it is immune from liability on several grounds.

Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc.

76 F. Supp. 3d 696 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 31, 2014

Indeed, the evidence before the Court clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff has in fact received and retained coverage for his injuries from Defendant Messer. (Doc. 14-2 at ¶¶ 2-4; Doc. 57-1 at 60-61). . … Subcontractor Defendants argue that the singular possessive form is used because the phrase simply defines the qualifying employees of an enrolled contractor or subcontractor and that it is the first phrase ("the contractors

Taylor v. Hooven

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 15, 2025

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 (2009).

Smith v. Grady

960 F. Supp. 2d 735 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 23, 2013

Defendant contends that in her official capacity, Judge Grady qualifies as an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity because both the Court of Common Pleas and the Juvenile Court have been held to be arms of the … In addition, Section 2152.42(A) provides that “Any detention facility established under section 2152.41 of the Revised Code shall be under the direction of a superintendent.

Baker v. Carnine

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2021

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … There are two steps to the qualified immunity analysis: (1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) and if the first step is satisfied, whether the right was clearly established at the time

Neuens v. City of Columbus

275 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 11, 2003

The Court denied Officer Bridges’ request for qualified immunity on the ground that the right to be free from state-created danger was clearly established at the time of this incident. … Hence, based on the finding that Officer Bridges was not acting under color of state law, the Court need not address Officer Bridges’ claim of qualified immunity.

Whitfield v. Muskingum County Ohio

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

Since the alleged unlawfulness of his conduct was not clearly established, Prosecutor Welch is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the alleged unlawfulness of Prosecutor Welch’s conduct was not clearly established, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Hott

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

clearly established law. … McConnell instead contends Hott has not shown a violation of his constitutional rights under clearly established law and qualified immunity shields him from Hott’s § 1983 claims. See Doc.

Estate of Owensby v. City of Cincinnati

385 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 25, 2004

Both clearly purport, on their face, to vest both the City and the individual police officer Defendants with some degree of immunity from the Estate’s claims. … may be asserted to establish nonliability: (6) In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section and in circumstances not covered by that division or sections 3314.07 and 3746.24 of the

Sorg Paper Co. v. Murphy

111 F.R.D. 363 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 11, 1986

Because, under the doctrine established in Erie R.R. Co. v. … This potential hazard should have been particularly avoided in a situation involving a federal official who might be cloaked with absolute or qualified immunity.