Case law

Doe v. Ohio State Univ.

323 F. Supp. 3d 962 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 20, 2018

that right was clearly established.' " Miami Univ. , 882 F.3d at 604 (quoting Colvin v. … certainly clearly established at all times pertinent to this action....'

Reed v. Multi-Cty. Juvenile Sys.

2010 Ohio 6602 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2010

To overcome the appellants' qualified-immunity defense, Reed must establish that the appellants' conduct violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. Hope v. … Leonard (C.A.8, 2007), 477 F.3d 544, where qualified immunity was denied via summary judgment.

Szuch v. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co.

2016 Ohio 620 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2016

Nuisance may be further divided into “absolute” and “qualified.” … . {¶ 54} Alternatively, appellants argue that the operation of the range above the noise regulations is evidence of negligence sufficient to establish a qualified nuisance.

Way v. Shawnee Township

192 F. Supp. 3d 867 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants argue Truesdale is entitled to qualified immunity. *881 Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability. Mitchell v. … was “clearly established” when he or she did so.

Williams v. Crosby

43 F. Supp. 3d 794 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 12, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields from civil liability government officials who perform discretionary functions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Williams is a constitutional violation, it was not clearly established under Circuit precedent in September 2012. R. Williams is entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim.

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

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.”

Sorrells v. Gattison

644 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 1986

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1981), the Supreme Court redefined the qualified immunity doctrine. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 457 U.S. at 815-16 , 102 S.Ct. at 2736-37 .

Van Hull v. Marriott Courtyard

87 F. Supp. 2d 771 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 18, 2000

No Exception Available Assuming Deputy Slough is viewed as a police officer with qualified immunity, plaintiffs have not shown that his immunity should be disregarded. … Officials are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v.

Fallang v. Cormier

63 Ohio App. 3d 450 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1989

Clearly, under the rule enunciated in Willitzer , had appellee’s statements been made during the deposition, appellee would have been entitled to the privilege and absolute immunity. … In conclusion, appellee’s statements were entitled to immunity under both absolute and qualified privileges.

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.

Ward v. County of Cuyahoga

721 F. Supp. 2d 677 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 29, 2010

clearly established in the context of the case. … Accordingly, because plaintiffs have shown facts that establish a violation of a constitutional right, and that right was clearly established, defendant Sparks’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity is denied

Emanuel's, L.L.C. v. Restore Marietta, Inc.

206 N.E.3d 116 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2023

The court found that the facts in the complaint were “insufficient to establish any of the exceptions to immunity.” The court also found the City immune from the Valentine Act claim under the state action doctrine. … . {¶29} Emanuel’s also suggests that the City qualifies as a “person” who can violate the Valentine Act, asserting that the United States Supreme Court “has established that a municipal corporation can also be a

Donovan v. Kirtland Country Club

2026 Ohio 1327 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2026

Statutory Immunity for Shooting Range Owners and Operators {¶20} In their fourth assignment of error, the Donovans argue that statutory immunity for nuisance claims should not apply because “the standard for immunity … Having determined that KCC is entitled to statutory immunity from nuisance claims under R.C. 1533.85(A)(1) and that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to negligence or qualified nuisance, the Donovans’ first and

Turner v. City of Toledo

671 F. Supp. 2d 967 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 2, 2009

See Phelps, *975 286 F.3d at 299 (“The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation … In its earlier opinion, the Court rejected this argument by noting that “unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

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.

Palshook v. Jarrett

120 F. Supp. 2d 641 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 11, 2000

violate clearly established rights.’ ” Id. at 1161 (internal citations omitted). … Thus, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because genuine issues of material fact exists as to whether defendants actually violated plaintiffs clearly established rights, and if so, whether the

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.