Case law

Peelman v. Delaware Joint Vocational School District Board of Education

763 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 3, 1991

Fitzgerald involved the application and scope of the qualified immunity of federal executive officials arising under federal law, some questioned the applicability of the Harlow decision to a defense of qualified immunity … Therefore, because the same facts which would establish the validity of the plaintiff’s claim under § 1983, would serve to deny the defendants the protection afforded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, the defendants

Papp v. Snyder

81 F. Supp. 2d 852 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 20, 2000

The right to be free from excessive force is clearly established under the Fourth Amendment for purposes of qualified immunity. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). … Having found a potential constitutional violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Court must now consider the final step of the qualified immunity analysis.

Burgess v. Fischer

890 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2012

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.” Dickerson v. … Qualified immunity includes a two-step analysis: (1) considering the allegations in a light most favorable to the party injured, a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino

157 N.E.3d 406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2020

Additionally, the defendant officers asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the appellants’ Section 1983 claim because their conduct “did not violate a clearly established federal right which a reasonable … Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to overcome the qualified immunity and establish the deprivation of a federally protected constitutional right.

Westmoreland v. Sutherland

718 F. Supp. 2d 884 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 11, 2010

Qualified immunity cases, however, are not precisely on point. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, as well as from suit, so long as their official conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Sollenberger v. Sollenberger

173 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 25, 2016

clearly established constitutional right. … Sept. 29, 2006) (stating R.C, 311.05 establishes qualified immunity for a sheriff).

Dotson v. City of Youngstown, Ohio

76 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 17, 1999

DISCUSSION Defendant Chaibi contends he is entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Wegener v. City of Covington, 933 F.2d 390, 392 (6th Cir.1991).

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because “Cribett’s actions and those of his superior Mackey and his employer MRDD did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which Defendant

Gordon v. Mt. Carmel Farms, L.L.C.

2021 Ohio 1233 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2021

Under this defense, "[p]ublic officials, including police officers, who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate that either (1) a constitutional right was violated or (2) that the right was clearly established, -7-

State v. Melms

101 N.E.3d 747 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 18, 2018

Melms immunity from prosecution due to his confinement is contrary to the policy considerations underlying the immunity statute. {¶ 14} Melms asserts that he is a qualified individual as defined by R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii … The newly established immunity from prosecution set out in R.C. 2925.11(B) is not a fundamental right." {¶ 20} According to the State, "the class distinction drawn by this law is based solely on whether an individual has

Wallace v. City of Shelby

968 F. Supp. 1204 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 30, 1997

The Supreme Court held that, with respect to motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, “the judge may appropriately determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established … Plaintiffs assert that the use of excessive force is itself a violation of a clearly established constitutional right in “cases dealing with qualified immunity”. (Plaintiffs’ Opp. at 7).

State v. McInnes

2026 Ohio 734 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … to qualified immunity.

Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.

345 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 2018

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Nonetheless, Linder is still entitled to qualified immunity for this claim if the constitutional rights implicated were not clearly established.

Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services

809 F. Supp. 2d 754 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials performing discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “The third inquiry impacts the analysis when despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and so should still enjoy qualified immunity.” Id.

Akron v. Pari

2019 Ohio 1083 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2019

Pasco’s motion to dismiss because the unambiguous language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) limits immunity to minor drug possession offenses. … This Court concluded that the terms of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) are unambiguous: The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense

Patrizi v. Huff

821 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2011

The Right is Clearly Established The Court must next consider whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity — whether the constitutional right at issue is clearly established. Saucier v. … In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity.

Hora v. Risner

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 24, 2021

immunity analysis is whether the law was clearly established. 2. … Clearly Established Law? In Plumhoff v.

Marsilio v. Vigluicci

924 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 14, 2013

Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden of establishing that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 20, p. 6. … that was clearly established at the time in question.

Hunt v. City of Toledo Law Department

881 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 30, 2012

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court established a two part test for determining the applicability of qualified immunity in § 1983 actions. … As a general rule, the default position is that qualified immunity applies.

Doe v. University of Cincinnati

173 F. Supp. 3d 586 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2016

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity and thus shielded from suit under § 1983, for his . actions if his conduct.does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … When a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, as the Defendants have doné' in this case, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, Everson v.