Case law

Henry v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

162 F. Supp. 2d 794 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 3, 2000

To establish a prima facie case, she must show: (1) that she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for the position at issue; (3) that she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that she was … Under that framework, Henry bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation.

McGhee v. Light

384 F. Supp. 3d 894 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 15, 2019

Upon review, the Court must dismiss any case it determines is "frivolous or malicious," fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 … from suit, or when the plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.

Prince v. Scioto County Common Pleas Court, Court Employee

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 18, 2022

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

Grimm v. Cappelli

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 6, 2020

Qualified immunity immunizes state actors “from civil liability unless, in the course of performing their discretionary functions, they violate the plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights.” … State actors are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) “the facts alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right”; and (2) “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ when the event occurred such that a reasonable

Kelly v. Great Seneca Financial Corp.

443 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 16, 2005

Where a common law principle is well established, “... the courts may take it as given that Congress has legislated with an expectation that the principle will apply except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident … Congress clearly intended to regulate the “process” of debt collection, and nothing suggests that Congress intended to absolutely immunize legal proceedings from the statute’s reach. In fact, just the opposite is true.

Slyman v. City of Piqua

494 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2007

Kerber phrases his argument in terms of being entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … It is axiomatic that a court "evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all." Wilson v.

Jenkins v. Board of Education

463 F. Supp. 2d 747 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 21, 2006

First, the court must determine whether the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. … In short, absent authority holding that actions like those allegedly taken by Superintendent Evans violate a clearly established constitutional right, the Court must conclude that Evans is shielded from liability by the qualified

In re Dayco Corp. Derivative Securities Litigation

99 F.R.D. 616 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 1983

The few remaining documents not produced, they contend, are witness interview notes and other materials which clearly fall under either the attorney-client privilege or work product immunity. Id. at 5-6, 9-10. … it “clearly correct” that similar report is within the immunity). .

Haynes v. Marshall

704 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 9, 1988

. § 1983 in this regard is an issue of first impression and it is clear that an issue of first impression cannot involve a question of clearly established law, see, Davis v. … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 , reh. den. 468 U.S. 1226 , 105 S.Ct. 26 , 82 L.Ed.2d 919 (1984), or a question of clearly established right, see, Harlow v.

Alexander v. Ohio State University College of Social Work

697 F. Supp. 2d 831 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2010

DISCUSSION Defendants move for summary judgment and/or qualified immunity on each of Plaintiffs claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and violation of his civil rights. … Qualified Immunity The aforementioned discussion addresses each of Plaintiffs claims and concludes *854 that Defendants are entitled to summary-judgment on all the claims.

Ameyaw v. Delaware County Commissioners

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

Qualified immunity protects state officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Thus, “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under §1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Cook v. Woodard

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

Fourth, Cool objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that he is not entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 55 at 14-19). … However, Defendant is incorrect that courts are limited to considering Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. See Kesterson v.

Johnston v. Hamilton County Justice Center

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 11, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 “unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position … Accordingly, to defeat Evers’ qualified immunity claim, Johnston must show that (1) Evers violated Johnston’s Fourteenth Amendment rights; and (2) those rights are clearly established such that a reasonable deputy

Hopson v. Bumgardner

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

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 … qualified immunity.”

Huang v. Ohio State University

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 2020

Rizzoni is entitled to qualified immunity, because his alleged misconduct does not violate a clearly established, constitutionally protected interest. (7d. at 140.) 1. … Because the law was clearly established at the time, and a reasonable official would have known as much, Dr. Rizzoni’s request for qualified immunity for Ms. Huang’s due process claim is denied. E.

Demkowicz v. Endry

411 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 16, 1975

Whether the remedy ordered is legal or equitable is in fact immaterial to the policy considerations which have given rise to the qualified defense of executive immunity. … It is difficult to reconcile the fact that qualified executive immunity has been grafted upon § 1983 in the context of actions at law, with plaintiff’s proposition that such a defense is not recognizable in equity.

Nixon v. Northern Local School District Board of Education

383 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2005

Additional Issues In defendants’ supplemental memorandum, they ask the Court to dismiss the claims against the individual defendants based on qualified immunity. (Def. Supp. Mem. at 20). … The defense of qualified immunity protects officials only from individual liability for money damages. Flagner v. Wilkinson, 241 F.3d 475, 483 (6th Cir.2001).

Feaster v. Chambers-Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 23, 2024

As such, defendant Crank is not entitled to qualified immunity. As to the SRT defendants, it is clearly established that an inmate may not be beaten for no reason. See Coley v. … As such, these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because such conduct violates clearly established law.

Dennis v. Ohio State Teachers Retirement Board

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 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 … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227(2009) (holding that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a right was not “clearly established” by prior case law without resolving the question of whether the purported right

Hunter v. Hamilton County Board of Elections

850 F. Supp. 2d 795 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 8, 2012

Second, Hunter argues that even if the Board is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Board has waived that immunity by its own conduct in this litigation. … It is therefore clearly established that to succeed on their equal protection claim, Plaintiffs must show only that the Board’s actions resulted in the arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of the electorate. 2