Case law

White v. Erdos

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 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 reasonable person would … , and (2) was the right clearly established at the time of the injury?

Edge v. Mahlman

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 23, 2021

Schwartz, Qualified Immunity and Federalism All the Way Down, 109 Geo. … right, or if the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Moore v. City of Cincinnati/City of Cincinnati Police Department Scott

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 10, 2023

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 overcome a defendant's assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation

Board of Trustees SABIS International School v. Montgomery

205 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 14, 2002

a clear declaration of its intent to waive its immunity. … For a constitutionally protected property interest to exist, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Coleman v. Legmah

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 26, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendant argues that the Court must grant him summary judgment because Officer Legemah is entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 39, at 18.) … Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” White v.

Heeter v. Bowers

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 2023

Qualified immunity doctrine generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The qualified immunity analysis comprises two considerations: (1) “whether the facts alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was clearly established when

Gomez v. Ryan

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 31, 2024

c) Qualified Immunity Finally, the Court Employee Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity against the individual-capacity claims. … Gomez’s clearly established constitutional rights. The Court Employee Defendants enjoy qualified immunity from the individual-capacity claims alleged.

Leta v. Hamilton Job & Family Services

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 5, 2023

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … In the absence of such clearly established authority, individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. 2.

Kanu v. City Of Cincinnati

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 1, 2021

Qualified immunity The qualified-immunity doctrine “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … At the second step, the Court asks whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232).

Vinson v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 15, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … Qualified immunity is judged by making two inquiries.

Smith v. Gallia County Jail

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 1, 2021

Smith has not pled violations of clearly established law. … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Cremeans v. Taczak

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 17, 2022

Qualified immunity shields 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 … Qualified immunity is a two-step analysis: this Court must determine “whether the officers violated [Plaintiffs’] constitutional rights, and if so whether those rights were clearly established at the time.” Smith v.

Stoutamire v. Eddy

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Qualified immunity is typically used to defeat § 1983 claim against officials whose conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Phillips v.

Prows v. City of Oxford

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position … Thus, when a defendant raises qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that (1) “a constitutional violation has occurred” and (2) “the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable

O'Brien v. Morrison

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 2, 2023

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 … Courts use a two-step inquiry to analyze qualified immunity: (1) whether the government official’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established. Pearson v.

Hood v. City of Columbus

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2019

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit unless the plaintiff shows the official violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … However, the Supreme Court has held that for the purposes of qualified immunity, “the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant

Weaver v. University of Cincinnati

758 F. Supp. 446 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 5, 1991

. * * * * * On a biweekly basis, the University shall deduct the dues established by the Union from the payroll check of each union member who has authorized such a deduction and the fair share fee established by the Union … 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. Schied v.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency v. United States Department of Labor

121 F. Supp. 2d 1155 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 14, 2000

Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 899 , 111 S.Ct. 2631 , 115 L.Ed.2d 764 (1991), the Supreme Court clearly recognized that judicial authority may be exercised by a judicial body not otherwise established under Article III of the … The ERA differs from the other six Acts in that, once the complainant establishes a prima facie case, the employer must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable action, i.e.

Hutchinson v. City of Middletown, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 2022

Even if he had, defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … 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

McGuire v. City of Moraine, Ohio

178 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2001

In so doing, the Court notes that the individual Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity, which does not apply to claims against municipalities. Harrill v. … Consequently, the Court need not address the Defendants’ alternative arguments regarding Monell liability and qualified immunity. 10 .