Case law

United States v. White

28 F. Cas. 546 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 1, 1877

There is no particular right, privilege, or immunity specified in these counts, the exercise and enjoyment of which was to be hindered and prevented. … The weight of authority, I think, most clearly establishes the doctrine that in indictments for offenses created by statute, it is, as a general rule, sufficient to charge the offense In the words of the statute, and my apology

United States v. Pretty Products, Inc.

780 F. Supp. 1488 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 13, 1991

While there is clearly a split of authority as to whether equitable defenses are available in a § 9607 action, see, e.g., United States v. … To establish a claim for selective prosecution or enforcement of a statute, 17 a claimant must establish a violation of ordinary equal protection standards. Wayte v.

Klemencic v. Ohio State University

10 F. Supp. 2d 911 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 14, 1998

Crawford’s argument for qualified immunity from Plaintiff's § 1983 claim was rejected by this Court, and affirmed on appeal to the Sixth Circuit. See, Klemencic v. … The Court consequently finds it unnecessary to address Defendant Crawford’s argument for qualified immunity from Plaintiff's claim for hostile educational environmental. 7 .

Harrison v. Scott

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 29, 2022

An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless he has violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … Song is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

Cook v. Hairston

735 F. Supp. 239 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 4, 1990

Plaintiffs have not established a violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 . … In light of this determination, the Court need not address WCDHS’ claim that it is entitled to qualified immunity.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Calhoun

576 F. Supp. 177 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 6, 1983

More specifically, the Court concludes that the evidence established not only that Mr. … (See Van Benschoten transcript p. 4, L. 6-21; p. 7, L. 7-13; p. 19, L. 14-22) Based upon the foregoing, the Court believes that plaintiffs own evidence clearly shows that at the time of the accident Mr.

Jeter v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 9, 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 … Plaintiff has failed to establish that he suffered a deprivation of any clearly established statutory or constitutional right, such that any of the Defendants would have understood that his actions violated the same.

Franklin v. U.S. Postal Service

687 F. Supp. 1214 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 27, 1988

If it be asserted by Plaintiff that the absenteeism was not a result of the condition then she is clearly not “otherwise qualified”, but simply an individual unwilling to perform the function of her job. … In view of the foregoing, the Court determines that Plaintiff has not established a cause of action and that her complaint should be and it is hereby DISMISSED at Plaintiff’s costs. It is so ORDERED.

Grim v. Moore

745 F. Supp. 1280 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 1988

Specifically, Defendant Kimpel is qualified, pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 701, to testify that, in his opinion, the Plaintiff “was under the influence of alcohol and was intoxicated at that time [the time of his arrest]”, given … the fact that the affidavit clearly shows that his opinion was rationally based upon his perceptions of the Plaintiff.

Grimm v. Cappelli

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 20, 2020

” the “illegal searches” because of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity exists 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 [state actor]

Booth v. Lazzara

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2024

“‘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 … In contrast, Doughman contends that summary judgment is warranted in his favor on this claim based on qualified immunity because (1) Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a violation of Dustin’s clearly established constitutional

Fugate v. Erdos

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 22, 2021

entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendant’s qualified immunity arguments focus primarily (if not exclusively) on whether Plaintiff’s asserted constitutional right was clearly established under the Fourth Amendment.

Committee to Impose Term Limits on the Ohio Supreme Court & to Preclude Special Legal Status for Members & Employees of the Ohio General Assembly v. Ohio Ballot Board

275 F. Supp. 3d 849 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 28, 2017

The Eleventh Amendment grants sovereign immunity to States except when the State consents to be sued, when Congress abrogates a State’s immunity, or when the Ex Parte Young exception applies. S & M Brands, Inc. v. … Ohio has not waived its sovereign immunity here. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this claim.

United States v. Chaffee

25 F. Cas. 380 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 15, 1867

The government is entitled to no immunity from the operation of principles of law applicable to judicial trial. … The general principle on this subject is very clearly stated by Mr.

Deters v. Hammer

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2021

For many decades in decisions like Bigelow, Surace and Hecht, the Ohio Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly emphasized that absolute immunity (rather than qualified immunity) applies to statements like those made … That includes cases in which the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

Wilkey v. Hull

598 F. Supp. 2d 823 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 2009

They contend that Wilkey cannot establish a common law fraud claim, that they are immune under federal and state laws concerning medical peer review proceedings, and that they were released by the settlement entered in Wilkey … In reality, an Ohio statute rendered him ineligible for that benefit, something the defense attorney either knew or clearly should have known.

Stafford v. Sugarcreek Township

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 8, 2025

“‘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 … “At the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established.” Bunkley v.

Jamison v. Knight

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2020

The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to the magistrate judge's factual findings and the “contrary to law” standard applies to the legal conclusions. Sheppard v. … Attorney Jessica Knight is not entitled to prosecutorial immunity; and none of the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they knew their acts were unconstitutional.

McDougald v. Erdos

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 30, 2019

immunity on certain claims. … Plaintiff argues that he “clearly” stated claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on those claims. (Doc. 45).

Killoran

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 2026

Amendment and absolute judicial immunity. … Killoran further contends that the Defendants committed fraud by raising sovereign and qualified immunity defenses to his claims. (Id.).