Case law

Living Care Alternatives of Utica, Inc. v. United States, Internal Revenue Service

312 F. Supp. 2d 929 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 22, 2004

The United States and its agencies are immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and may be sued only to the extent that such immunity has been waived. See United States v. … Section 6330 does not establish a standard of review for the appeals to court it authorizes from IRS Collection Due Process rulings.

Hora v. Risner

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 13, 2020

reach the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, 7e., whether the law was clearly established. … On the qualified immunity issue, the Court held that “the applicable law regarding procedural due process was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation of Abbott's rights.

Thomson v. Ohio State University Hospital

5 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 8, 1998

Milby, 928 F.2d 188 (6th Cir.1991). *577 The state of Ohio has not clearly waived its sovereign immunity from suit in the case of claims brought under the FMLA. … Congress has clearly expressed its intent to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity to actions under the FMLA.

Pullen v. Tabor

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2024

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil damages unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v. … Once the defendant has successfully raised qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to summary judgment because the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional

Black v. Columbus Public Schools

124 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 22, 2000

Plaintiff has offered absolutely no evidence to refute this legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for CPS’ decision to promote Prentice instead of Plaintiff. 9 Plaintiffs subjective belief that she was “clearly more qualified … Plaintiff does not address CPS’ agency or immunity arguments. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish a claim for the intentional infliction of emo *588 tional distress.

GREATER HEIGHTS ACADEMY v. Zelman

439 F. Supp. 2d 827 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 2006

The statutory definition of political subdivision also expressly includes, inter alia, “community school[s] established under Chapter 3314 of the Revised Code.” Id. … The preceding language indicates that, under Ohio law, Plaintiffs indeed qualify as political subdivisions of the State of Ohio.

Powe v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2021

“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 of which a reasonable … Clearly Established Right Turning to the second prong of Defendants’ qualified immunity claim, the Undersigned finds that Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established

Abernathy v. City Of Cincinnati

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 3, 2024

The reason Abernathy failed to overcome qualified immunity—but not statutory immunity—by alleging recklessness is because the former doctrine incorporates the separate requirement that the right at issue be “clearly established … clearly established”).

Icon Entertainment Group v. Rosser

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2022

Qualified Immunity Mr. … An official is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity if they have not violated a “‘clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable person would have known.’” White v.

Ash v. Phillips

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 22, 2025

Ash’s Fourth Amendment rights by entering his residence without a warrant and over his objection, any such violation was not clearly established and therefore Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. … Here, even if a constitutional violation occurred, the Court concludes that it the violation was not clearly established. As a result, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Commission

670 F. Supp. 1368 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 7, 1987

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In Judge Duncan’s January 23,1985 decision, he granted qualified immunity to defendants Lehman, McFadden, McDonald, Blackburn and McNichols who were sued in their individual capacities. … The plaintiffs motion to reconsider the granting of qualified immunity is therefore DENIED. IV.

Wenrich v. Franz

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 9, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages provided that their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … was clearly established by prior case law.

Eads

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 10, 2026

Qualified immunity protects government officials “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 … Here, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity on the record presented because Plaintiff has failed to show that he violated any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable

Enoch v. Hamilton County Sheriff's Office

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 2021

The Sixth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs plausibly alleged violations of their clearly established First and Fourth Amendment rights; affirmed this Court’s denial of qualified immunity; and remanded the case for further … were not clearly established law at the time of the arrests.” Enoch II, 818 F. App’x at 406 (emphasis added).

Cotterman v. City Of Cincinnati

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 25, 2021

To overcome qualified immunity, Cotterman must prove that Longworth’s conduct violated clearly established law. … The burden is on the plaintiff to establish the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Miller v. Admi.

Brace v. Ohio State University

866 F. Supp. 1069 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 1994

Defendants argue that plaintiff does not qualify for protection under the VRA, because he has not established that he falls within the definition of a Vietnam era veteran. … Rather, in order to establish a claim under § 1985(3), plaintiff must prove: 1) the existence of a conspiracy; 2) for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities under

Martin v. Voinovich

840 F. Supp. 1175 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 14, 1993

Plaintiffs in the instant ease argue that, unlike the petitioners in Traynor , they do not seek to qualify for benefits; they already are qualified, or at least allege they are qualified, to participate in community residential … Such an inquiry is clearly beyond the scope of review appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Bethel v. Warden

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 22, 2022

Even if there is a constitutional right, it is not clearly established. See Freeman v. … Benson, 2017 WL 5731295, at *10–11 (granting qualified immunity to prison staff for censoring a prisoner’s emails containing vulgar and derogatory language about prison staff because there is not a clearly established right

Miller v. State of Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 3, 2022

To decide the applicability of qualified immunity, the Court asks “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right and (2) if so, whether that constitutional right was clearly established such that a ‘reasonable … Miller has the burden to “demonstrate that the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity . . . by alleging facts sufficient to indicate that the [government official’s] act in question violated clearly established

Bethel v. Warden

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2021

Legal Standard “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability ‘so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To establish qualified immunity, the official bears the burden of presenting facts which, if true, would establish that he or she were acting within the scope of his or her discretionary authority. Wegener v.