Case law

Webb v. Greene County Sheriff's Office

494 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 2007

Even where an officer has violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, that officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the right that he violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … As the right that Keller is accused of violating was clearly established at the time of the *795 arrest, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. 4.

Harris v. Adams

410 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 20, 2005

First, in determining whéther a constitutional right is clearly established, the court must first look to decisions of the U.S. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity and thus protected from liability under § 1983 for his actions if his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable

Stone v. Holzberger

807 F. Supp. 1325 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 3, 1992

In the alternative, the Sheriff’s defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. Stone had no clearly established right to a prompt judicial hearing. However, Ms. … Stone’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Ms.

Gillman v. Schlagetter

777 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 30, 2010

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages, and protects them from the burdens of litigation, if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu *1097 tional rights … When a Plaintiff asserts the defense of qualified immunity, he must establish the right allegedly violated to be established to the extent that a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would have clearly understood

Kutschbach v. Davies

885 F. Supp. 1079 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 1995

as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … If the law was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Ashiegbu v. Purviance

76 F. Supp. 2d 824 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 16, 1998

This immunity protects these officials only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would person would have known.” Harlow v. … As the Supreme Court noted, “[u]n-less the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of trial.”

Thompson v. City of Oakwood

307 F. Supp. 3d 761 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 8, 2018

Having determined that the rights at issue were not clearly established, Kroger is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim for violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. … Thus, Plaintiffs' rights also were not clearly established here and Kroger is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim as well. ii.

Estate of Owensby v. City of Cincinnati

385 F. Supp. 2d 626 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 20, 2004

qualified immunity.”) … care was clearly established as of November 7, 2000.

Wingrove v. Forshey

230 F. Supp. 2d 808 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 13, 2002

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … immunity because he violated clearly established rights.

Edwards v. City of Martins Ferry

554 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 14, 2008

to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … 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

Kammeyer v. City of Sharonville

311 F. Supp. 2d 653 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 16, 2003

As a result of Plaintiffs’ filing of their Third Amended Complaint, the issue of qualified immunity was removed from the case (doc. 119). … Defendants argue that their duty was to their employer, the Sharonville Police Department, and suggest that they owe no clearly established constitutional duties to families of murder victims (doc. 62).

Davis v. Jackson County Municipal Court

941 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 23, 2013

Qualified Immunity ' With regard to Davis’ remaining Title VII official capacity claim, Judge Musick contends that he is entitled to qualified *883 immunity. … “The qualified-immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights.” Quigley v.

Kirkland v. Luken

536 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 6, 2008

to qualified immunity. … Because plaintiff fails to establish a violation of his clearly established constitutional rights, it follows that the other defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Rainey v. Patton

873 F. Supp. 2d 908 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 1, 2012

Qualified Immunity 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 … was clearly established.

Mayrides v. Delaware County Commissioners

666 F. Supp. 2d 861 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 24, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can shield government officials from individual civil liability where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Clearly Established Right In Pearson v.

Spier v. Elaesser

267 F. Supp. 2d 806 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 1, 2003

Qualified immunity is a defense to liability in a civil lawsuit which is available to government officials who perform discretionary functions if their alleged conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the right alleged to be breached by the officer was not clearly established at the time of the offense, or if established, the right is one that a reasonable person in

Hale v. Vance

267 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 2003

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for assessing whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Crockett v. Cumberland College, 316 F.3d 571, 579 (6th Cir.2003). … It is a plaintiff’s burden in this Court, in opposing a legitimate qualified immunity defense, to point to cases of the Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit demonstrating that her rights purportedly violated were clearly established

EJ v. Hamilton County, Ohio

707 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 1989

Although defendants rely on the doctrine of immunity established in O.R.C. 2744, this immunity is not absolute. … clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have known at the time.”

Morrow v. Igleburger

67 F.R.D. 675 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 25, 1974

It is not difficult, once the quasi-judicial immunity for prosecuting attorneys is clearly established, to extend such immunity to an assistant prosecuting attorney. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE POLICE Regarding suits under § 1983 against police officers there exists a “qualified immunity.” Qualified immunity differs from immunity doctrines in a strict sense.

Adams v. Ohio Univ.

300 F. Supp. 3d 983 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2018

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are not liable for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … was 'clearly established' at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct."