Case law

Stein

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 26, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that qualified immunity shields them from Stein’s § 1983 claims for monetary liability. See Doc. … permit a reasonable juror to find that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.”

Chesher v. Neyer

215 F.R.D. 544 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 13, 2003

Extrapolating these figures and applying them to the 333 bodies, Plaintiffs argue that they clearly have a class number in excess of 1,000 people (Id.). … Plaintiffs have adequately established that common legal and factual issues exist. Under Day it is clear that only one common policy need be at issue. 144 F.R.D. at 333 .

Fisher v. Columbus

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 10, 2024

When a defendant “is subject to discovery requests on claims for which she does not or cannot assert qualified immunity, such discovery requests do not implicate her right to qualified immunity.” Id. … Fishel has established only that discovery should be stayed as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims subject to a qualified immunity defense. IV.

Allah v. Chambers Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 15, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants also briefly raise the defense of qualified immunity. (Doc. 39 at 12–14). … 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 person

Gallow v. Pittis

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2019

An official is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity so long as he has not violated a “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” White v. … The qualified immunity analysis involves a two-step analysis involving a determination whether the facts that the plaintiff has pleaded constitute the violation of a constitutional right and whether said right was clearly

Morgan v. City of Columbus, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 2020

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional … Rather than argue the right to be free from race discrimination in employment is not clearly established, Defendants’ qualified immunity argument focuses on Chief Jacobs’s role in Morgan’s termination.

Soriano v. Xavier University Corporation

687 F. Supp. 1188 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 26, 1988

Therefore, defendants’ arguments are premised on first amendment concerns relating to the free exercise and establishment clauses. … Absent this substantial risk, courts have not rendered large groups of employers immune from liability, as such exemption would substantially frustrate the intent and purpose of the federal laws.

Agrawal v. University of Cincinnati

977 F. Supp. 2d 800 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 7, 2013

Qualified Immunity Alternatively, Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Dr. Agrawal’s claims. … This case does not clearly establish Dr.

Lewis v. Huntington National Bank

838 F. Supp. 2d 703 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2012

or qualifies for a particular loan. … Once an employer establishes this good faith defense, Huntington contends, it has “absolute immunity from paying unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, court costs, or attorney’s fees for FLSA violations.”

Boyce v. City Hall for Springfield Ohio

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

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for actions taken in the scope of their duties, unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … the facts alleged”; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established.”

Williams v. Wilkinson

122 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 29, 2000

The Defendants filed their Second Motion for Summary Judgment on June 8, 2000, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity as the Plaintiffs right to call witnesses was not clearly established. … In their Second Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity as the Plaintiffs right to call witnesses was not clearly established.

Cook v. Sicilian

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 23, 2020

“To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, a court evaluates two independent prongs: whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established … Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim fails at the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

McCain v. Jenkins

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 27, 2019

Whether Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity . Defendants finally contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all . … was □□ clearly established—when Defendants did not make that argument for themselves.

Mitchell v. The Ohio State University

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 3, 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 … outside engagements is a “clearly established right.”

Weyrich

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 22, 2026

The Court also declines to address the qualified immunity argument as to the (now-dismissed) § 1983 claim because the allegations lack the specificity needed to evaluate whether Carleta violated a clearly established right … The Court Declines to Address Carleta’s Qualified Immunity Argument. Finally, a word about qualified immunity.

Youngblood v. Dalzell

625 F. Supp. 30 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 1985

A plan is not stigmatizing if those hired or promoted under it are qualified for the job. Id. at 891 . … As we demonstrated already, the plan here approved clearly meets those requirements.

Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc.

927 F. Supp. 1036 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 24, 1996

Both of these funds have been fully funded and are being distributed to qualifying class members. … Thus, the nature of Counsel’s work in this case clearly does not justify a larger award. III.

Cruse v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.

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

Walmart Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” … Here, the Walmart Defendants demonstrated that all five elements are met to establish qualified immunity. (ECF No. 48 at PAGEID ## 1114-1115.)

Harris v. Erdos

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 15, 2022

Notably, 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 … Here, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities on the record presented because Plaintiff has failed to show that any Defendant violated any clearly established constitutional right of

Deavors v. Burnham

513 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 5, 1981

However, this is not to say that my constitutional rights werenot violated, this is only to say thattthe defendants would be entitled to “Qualified Immunity”, Scheuer v. … immunity, that would make a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 forum improper for the declaratory relief as requested above, because if the court did declare that the defendants act were unconstitution but they are immune from monetary damages