Case law

Healy

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 2025

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government actors are shielded from civil liability in the performance of their duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … To the extent that Chung was acting on a mistaken belief as to Healy’s identity, the law has not clearly established that a good faith mistake is unlawful and fatal to his qualified immunity, especially when his conduct

Caddell v. Campbell

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 2020

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 … Caddell’s clearly established constitutional rights. Mr.

Thomas v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

36 F. Supp. 2d 997 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 1998

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, Plaintiff must show the following: a) that she is a member of a protected class; b) that she was qualified for the job she held; c) that despite her qualifications … And it is undisputed that Plaintiff was qualified for the position she holds.

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.

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

Homewood Corp. v. Kemp

786 F. Supp. 1315 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 9, 1992

Such an action would clearly fall within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . 1 In its Memorandum Contra Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment, (hereinafter “Memorandum Contra”), however, … The prohibited identity of interest between Plaintiff and the sponsor/borrower Somerset Lane has been established.

Oldfather v. Ohio Department of Transportation

653 F. Supp. 1167 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 1986

Plaintiff and Defendants in this case, however, agree that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for any good faith conduct on their part which may have deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional right … The scope of such qualified immunity was set forth by the Supreme Court in Harlow v.

Fugate v. Erdos

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2021

In assessing qualified immunity, the Court must first ask whether Plaintiff has shown a constitutional violation, and then, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … The Magistrate Judge denied qualified immunity, finding that, “[a]t the time of the strip searches at issue, it was clearly established that force applied ‘maliciously and sadistically to cause harm’ violates the Eighth

Thomas v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

36 F. Supp. 2d 1005 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 3, 1999

It is undisputed that Harrington was employed by ODRC at all times during his wiretapping; therefore, Harrington qualifies as an “employee” under § 2743.02(A)(1). … Although Thomas thus waived the waiver issue, this Court’s decision is not based upon her failure to respond, but rather upon the clearly established law of the Sixth Circuit.

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

McRae v. Lendsey

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 23, 2022

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … at *3 (denying a request for qualified immunity because pepper-spraying a compliant prisoner violates clearly established law).

Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati Board of Education

249 F. Supp. 2d 911 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 11, 2003

immunity (doc. 5). … The Court further finds that as there is no First Amendment violation, the individual Board members are entitled to qualified immunity as their conduct violated no clearly established constitutional right. Johnson v.

Chappel

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 14, 2026

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … Whether Moore Violated Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis is whether the alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

Corso v. Hamilton County, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 7, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Here, the “clearly established constitutional right” was not yet established.

Whitfield

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

CO Runyan has asserted qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s excessive force claim, which “shields officers from damages suits unless their conduct ‘violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Clearly- established law for qualified immunity purposes must be defined specifically and not “at a high level of generality.” Clark, 131 F.4th at 452 (quoting Ashcroft, 563 U.S. at 742).

Reyes v. Wilson Memorial Hospital

102 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 1998

As the language of the statute indicates, it only provides for an immunity from damages. It states that qualified individuals and entities “shall not be liable in damages.” 42 U.S.C. § 11111 (a)(1). … E.g., Wayne, 140 F.3d at 1149 (plaintiffs evidence “insufficient to rebut the presumption established in section 11112(a)”).

Reed v. Mohr

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 15, 2019

clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct; either of these prongs may be addressed first.

Wiley v. City of Columbus

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

Therefore, Andrews and Shaffner are also entitled to qualified immunity under this prong of the qualified immunity analysis. E. … “When federal qualified immunity and Ohio state-law immunity under [Ohio Rev.

Herman v. Ohio University

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 22, 2019

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 … To summarize, because Kalyango does not allege sufficient facts showing Anaya violated a clearly established constitutional right, Anaya is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity as to Count Two.

Gerhardt v. Lazaroff

221 F. Supp. 2d 827 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 25, 2002

San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 , 105 S.Ct. 1005 , 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985), to establish a new type of Tenth Amendment immunity constituting a “structural immunity from suit that extends beyond the … Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1 , 109 S.Ct. 2273 , 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)) and firmly established that Congress may not abrogate state sovereign immunity under any of its Article I powers.