Case law

Davis v. Jackson County Municipal Court

941 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 23, 2013

Qualified Immunity ' With regard to Davis’ remaining Title VII official capacity claim, Judge Musick contends that he is entitled to qualified *883 immunity. … “The qualified-immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights.” Quigley v.

Kirkland v. Luken

536 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 6, 2008

to qualified immunity. … Because plaintiff fails to establish a violation of his clearly established constitutional rights, it follows that the other defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati

169 Ohio App. 3d 627 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2006

to go to trial.” 53 To this end, a ruling on the issue of qualified immunity should be made as early as possible in the proceedings, before the commencement of discovery. 54 “[A] quick resolution of a qualified immunity … claim is essential.” 55 {¶ 82} “Where a defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must plead facts which, if true, describe a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right

State Ex Rel. Connors v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation

8 Ohio App. 3d 44 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1982

In order to qualify to bid on ODOT projects, a contractor, prior to bidding, must qualify both financially and also as to the equal employment opportunity regulations. … The defendants claim that declaratory and injunctive relief are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In American Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v.

Matasic v. City of Campbell, Ohio

954 F. Supp. 156 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 1997

[the] clearly established constitutional rights.” … Individual claims of immunity must be analyzed on a fact-specific, case-by-ease basis to determine whether the constitutional rights were so clearly established when the alleged misconduct was committed that any official

Karchin v. Metzenbaum

587 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 1983

The immunity defense which may be raised by a government official is limited to protection against challenges to his conduct while performing an official function and with no violation of clearly established law. … The second inquiry was the extent to which the official reasonably could have known that his conduct would violate clearly established law.

Spier v. Elaesser

267 F. Supp. 2d 806 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 1, 2003

Qualified immunity is a defense to liability in a civil lawsuit which is available to government officials who perform discretionary functions if their alleged conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the right alleged to be breached by the officer was not clearly established at the time of the offense, or if established, the right is one that a reasonable person in

Hale v. Vance

267 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 2003

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for assessing whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Crockett v. Cumberland College, 316 F.3d 571, 579 (6th Cir.2003). … It is a plaintiff’s burden in this Court, in opposing a legitimate qualified immunity defense, to point to cases of the Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit demonstrating that her rights purportedly violated were clearly established

Blythe v. Schlievert

245 F. Supp. 3d 959 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 2017

One court has recently summarized Sixth Circuit qualified immunity law: The Supreme Court has repeatedly told courts ... not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality, since doing so avoids the crucial … Those which do consider qualified immunity vis-a-vis a § 1983 claim have upheld the defendants’ immunity claim. Doe v.

EJ v. Hamilton County, Ohio

707 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 1989

Although defendants rely on the doctrine of immunity established in O.R.C. 2744, this immunity is not absolute. … clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have known at the time.”

Morrow v. Igleburger

67 F.R.D. 675 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 25, 1974

It is not difficult, once the quasi-judicial immunity for prosecuting attorneys is clearly established, to extend such immunity to an assistant prosecuting attorney. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE POLICE Regarding suits under § 1983 against police officers there exists a “qualified immunity.” Qualified immunity differs from immunity doctrines in a strict sense.

Jones v. City of Youngstown

980 F. Supp. 908 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 14, 1997

Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions as long as the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In order to assert a violation of a “clearly established” right and defeat a qualified immunity defense, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is

Adams v. Ohio Univ.

300 F. Supp. 3d 983 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2018

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are not liable for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … was 'clearly established' at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct."

H.M. ex rel. M.M. v. Board of Education

117 F. Supp. 3d 992 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 3, 2015

Qualified immunity of Defendants Gasper and Bogaert Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … That right is clearly established in the Sixth Circuit. S.S. v. E. Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d 445, 457 (6th Cir.2008). .Accordingly, the grant of qualified immunity is not appropriate at this early stage. B.

Thompson v. Germantown Cemetery

188 Ohio App. 3d 132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2010

In the first tier, the court determines whether the defendant is a political subdivision entitled to qualified immunity under R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). … And in the third tier, the court determines whether the political subdivision can re-establish its immunity using one of the defenses in R.C. 2744.03.

Dye v. City of Warren

367 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 2005

Reasonableness of Force, Constitutional Deprivation and Qualified Immunity with Regard to Chief Mandopoulos. Mr. … Dye did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and, therefore, is shielded by qualified immunity.

Ridgeway v. Union County Commissioners

775 F. Supp. 1105 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 1991

Objective reasonableness is to be measured by reference to clearly established law. Id. … Payton clearly establishes that warrantless home searches absent “exigent” circumstances, are unconstitutional.

Asher Investments, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati

122 Ohio App. 3d 126 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 1997

immunity where evidence supports Asher’s contention that she violated clearly established constitutional rights, which a reasonable person would have known. … The Sixth Circuit has established a heightened pleading standard for Section 1983 actions against individual government officials where qualified immunity has been asserted as a defense. Veney v.

Williams v. Nice

58 F. Supp. 3d 833 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2014

immunity because he did not violate clearly established federal law.” … To prevail on her underlying tort claims, Williams “must defeat the presumption of immunity.” Id. The Court adopts its qualified immunity analysis herein as it is equally applicable to a claim of state immunity.

Guglielmo v. Montgomery Cnty.

387 F. Supp. 3d 798 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 28, 2019

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their actions violate clearly established rights "of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … The second inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Guglielmo, it was. If the jury determines Sgt.