Case law

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

Irvin v. City of Shaker Heights

809 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2011

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known were in existence. … The court therefore finds that qualified immunity is not appropriate because Irvin’s account supports a finding that the backup officers violated a clearly established constitutional right to be free from gratuitous beating

Reynolds v. Guerra

670 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the excessive force claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs excessive force claim. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a clearly established constitutional violation. 2.

Carmichael v. City of Cleveland

881 F. Supp. 2d 833 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 1, 2012

Even if not entitled to absolute immunity, a prosecuting attorney may claim qualified immunity. … Once qualified immunity is raised as a defense, it is Plaintiff's burden to show a constitutional violation to defeat qualified immunity.

Rose v. Village of Peninsula

875 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 27, 1995

Thus, to determine if defendants Ruoff or Redmon violated any clearly established constitutional rights such that they would not be entitled to rely on qualified immunity, it is necessary for the Court to decide (1) what … It is not these general rights, however, but rather “particularized rights” that plaintiff must show were clearly established in order to avoid the defense of 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.

Jones v. Beatty

4 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 30, 1998

The next step in a qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the alleged violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … The right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and to be free from the use of excessive force, is clearly established under the Fourth Amendment for purposes of a claim of qualified immunity. 4 Therefore, the next inquiry

Granato v. Davis

2014 Ohio 5572 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2014

However, the trial court did err in denying Shott qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. 1983. … This right is known in law as qualified immunity.” Cook at 85.

Jones v. Sandusky County

889 F. Supp. 2d 990 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 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. … (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of Defendants’ alleged misconduct.

Fagan v. Shelby

2025 Ohio 2648 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2025

as long as the property qualifies as recreational property, and the user qualifies as a recreational user. … Chapter 2744.03(A)(7) expressly and broadly encompasses "any" defense or immunity available at common law or established in the Revised Code. Thus, the Court finds that R.C.

Decuzzi v. City of Westlake

191 Ohio App. 3d 816 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2010

absolute, qualified, etc.) and identify what facts establish the defense.” {¶ 5} In response, the city objected on the basis that the requests were vague and overbroad, and furthermore that Civ.R. 26 “does not allow for … defense by its type (i.e., absolute, qualified, etc.) and identify what facts establish the defense” is beyond the scope of Civ.R. 26.

Stevens v. Trumbull County Sheriffs' Department

63 F. Supp. 2d 851 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendant Norman Olson asserts that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified immunity. … Because no clearly established constitutional right existed at the time the alleged violation occurred, Defendant Olson is entitled to qualified immunity- State Claims This Court finds that genuine issues of material fact

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

Greene County Agricultural Society v. Liming

89 Ohio St. 3d 551 · Ohio Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2000

The functions at issue clearly are not ones “imposed upon the state as an obligation of sovereignty.” … We stress that, upon remand, Mangan’s personal immunity is an open question, at this time neither established nor foreclosed.

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).

Coy Ex Rel. Coy v. Board of Education of the North Canton City Schools

205 F. Supp. 2d 791 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 29, 2002

See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (stating that qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The defendants assert qualified immunity on the premise that the right they allegedly violated was not clearly established.

Miller v. Village of Boston Heights

65 F. Supp. 2d 674 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 20, 1999

The right to be free from the use of excessive force is clearly established under the Fourth Amendment for purposes of a claim of qualified immunity. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 . … Having found a potential constitutional violation of a clearly established right, the Court must now consider the final step of the qualified immunity analysis.

McKee v. McCann

2017 Ohio 7181 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County · Aug 10, 2017

Shamblin had a qualified immunity from suit for false arrest. C. … We previously stated that Shamblin had qualified immunity on the false arrest claim, and that qualified immunity extends to a defamation claim premised on the same conduct.

Bremiller v. Cleveland Psychiatric Institute

879 F. Supp. 782 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 1995

Defendants Are Not Entitled To Qualified Immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity may operate to protect state officials sued as individuals in civil rights actions. … Once defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must produce additional facts or allegations demonstrating that her constitutional rights were violated and “that these rights were so clearly established