Case law

Treadway v. Columbus Police Department

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2025

Qualified Immunity “shields government officials in the performance of discretionary functions from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights.” DiLuzio v. … The next step of the qualified immunity analysis asks us to determine whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Fisher v. Columbus

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2024

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery … Fisher to “establish that [his] conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in his position would have clearly understood that he was under an affirmative duty to refrain from such conduct.” Id.

Meekison v. Voinovich

17 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 1998

Meekison’s Claim Under the ADA To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Meekison must show: (1) she was disabled within the meaning of the statute at the time of her employment; (2) she was qualified to perform the … Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie ease under the ADEA, Meekison must show the following: a) membership in the protected class (between the ages of 40 and 70); b) that she applied and was qualified for a promotion

Abdulsalaam v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

637 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2009

qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

Krzywkowski v. Mohr

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 28, 2025

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … on grounds of qualified immunity.

McDougald v. Clagg

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 5, 2021

In other words, plaintiffs must articulate why the asserted constitutional rights count as “clearly established,” or else qualified immunity bars those claims. … retaliation claim, McDougald once again waived the clearly-established prong of qualified immunity with respect to that claim.

Thompson v. Ohio State University

990 F. Supp. 2d 801 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 6, 2014

It is not necessarily true that the exact factual circumstances alleged in a given case must have been found to be a constitutional violation before a right can be “clearly established” for purposes of a qualified immunity … Salimbene’s claim of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that a public official’s retaliation against an individual for exercising First Amendment rights violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Ketring v. City of Loveland, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 6, 2023

right was clearly established at the time of the offense. … Once a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right and showing that the right was clearly established.

Bethel v. Warden

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 5, 2022

Qualified Immunity. Bethel also asks the Court to reconsider its decision granting Defendant Smith qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonably

Wolfe v. Hocking County Sheriff's Department

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2024

Sept. 8, 2021) (affirming a grant of qualified immunity on the clearly established prong where officers searched the plaintiff’s home and seized property listed in a divorce order); Bates v. … Because Defendants raise qualified immunity, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts showing that (1) Defendants’ conduct violated his Second Amendment right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time.

Ellison v. Martin

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 30, 2020

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … The right to be free from arrest without probable cause was clearly established in 2016 for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. See, e.g., Radvansky v.

Brown v. Venable

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

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001) (“This circuit has held that the right to be free from excessive force . . . is a clearly established right for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.”).

Gawloski v. Dallman

803 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 1992

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Prison officials performing discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional law of which a reasonable prison official would have … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity argument in a motion for summary judgement, a plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test: “First, the allegations must state a claim of violation of clearly established law.

Doe v. Ohio State University

219 F. Supp. 3d 645 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 7, 2016

The Court “review[s] an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’ ” Back v. … Majarian is entitled to qualified immunity because Doe has stated no specific allegations that Majarian violated clearly established law by failing to disclose key impeachment evidence.

Caprita v. Dunaway

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 12, 2024

“To show that the official violated a ‘clearly established’ right, the plaintiff must ‘define with specificity the clearly established legal rule that the officers allegedly violated.’” Paul v. Whitley Cnty. Det. … In response to Defendant’s claim to qualified immunity, Plaintiff cites no case law that would tend to show Dunaway violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right to not be handcuffed like he was.

Mills v. Cvitkovich

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

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields state actors “‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … They do state off-hand that Mills has not pointed to any clearly established right which would overcome Officer Cvitkovitch’s claim to qualified immunity (id. at PageID 208), but the lion’s share of Defendants’ Motion rests

Jones v. Marcum

197 F. Supp. 2d 991 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 11, 2002

is per se violative of a “clearly established” right. … The ultimate, more particularized question in the qualified immunity context is whether Jones’ had a clearly established right under the facts as he states them. This case falls into the realm of Brandenburg .

Lucas v. The City of Reynoldsburg

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 2025

because they violated no clearly established right. … Thus, an official sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the

Caretolive v. Von Eschenbach

525 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 4, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Instead, to establish that a right was clearly established in a qualified immunity analysis, this Court must look first to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and then to the case law of this circuit.

Washington v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 2024

That is enough for the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (requiring cases proffered as factually analogous “to speak [] to the specific circumstances” at bar for the clearly established prong of qualified immunity).