Case law

Dudley v. Eden

49 F. Supp. 2d 581 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 4, 1999

assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time.” … For purposes of qualified-immunity analysis, it is first important to note that Dudley has alleged a violation of his clearly established right to be free from the use of excessive force.

Williams v. City of Canton

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2025

To overcome Officer Huber’s qualified immunity defense, Plaintiff must plausibly plead facts showing 1) that Officer Huber violated a constitutional right and 2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the … Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 657 (2014) (holding “[o]ur qualified-immunity cases illustrate the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when, as here, a court decides only the clearly- established prong

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

Foran v. Fisher Foods, Inc.

17 Ohio St. 3d 193 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1985

We note that appellant’s complaint sounds strictly in negligence and any allegation of intentional conduct is clearly lacking. … If so, then appellee may invoke the constitutional and statutory immunity, thereby precluding appellant’s suit. Each lower court answered the query in the affirmative. We agree with their assessments.

Zickes v. Cuyahoga County

207 F. Supp. 3d 769 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 16, 2016

“The doctrine of 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 person … would have known.’ ” 99 To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court looks to whether the plaintiff (1) presents facts that make out a violation of “a clearly established constitutional right,” and if so, (

Russell v. Steck

851 F. Supp. 859 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 10, 1994

A state official is entitled to qualified immunity if his allegedly unlawful conduct was objectively reasonable when considered in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the challenged conduct … Clearly Established Rights.

Snyder v. United States

990 F. Supp. 2d 818 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 7, 2014

as the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”). … The doctrine of qualified immunity thus would protect Defendant Giordano “ ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

EJS PROPERTIES, LLC v. City of Toledo

651 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2009

Qualified Immunity McCloskey asserts qualified immunity in response to plaintiffs § 1983 claims. … “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. A.

Moore v. Cleveland

2014 Ohio 1426 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2014

. {¶19} If a court finds that a prosecutor’s actions are not covered by absolute immunity, then the prosecutor may be entitled to qualified immunity. … Once absolute immunity has been established under R.C. 2744.03(A)(7), it cannot be defeated by application of the “malicious purpose, bad faith” qualified immunity provisions of R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). Jopek v.

Presutto v. Hull

2018 Ohio 3103 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2018

performing such functions, a prosecutor is entitled to only a qualified immunity. … Once again, the complaint only alleges facts involving their scope as quasi-judicial officers, and once absolute immunity has been established, it cannot be defeated by application of the malicious purpose/bad faith qualified

Stipanovich v. Applin

74 Ohio App. 3d 506 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1991

This is clearly less than nine months later as the appellant represents in her brief. The record further reflects that the appellee asserted in its answer, as its ninth affirmative defense, immunity pursuant to R.C. … R.C. 2744.02 classifies functions of political subdivisions in order to establish the types of situations where liability attaches.

Rodriguez v. City of Cleveland

619 F. Supp. 2d 461 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 1, 2009

An a matter of law, qualified immunity shields a state actor from civil damages in appropriate cases: Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, … action places it beyond the scope of a police officer’s qualified immunity if the right retaliated against was clearly established,” DeLoach v.

Sinick v. County of Summit

196 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 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 … Objectively Unreasonable Even if the Defendants violated Plaintiff Sinick’s constitutional rights, and those rights were clearly established at the time, the Defendants will nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity

Scott v. City of Columbus Department of Public Utilities

192 Ohio App. 3d 465 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2011

Thus, once immunity is established, it becomes necessary to determine whether any of the stated exceptions apply. Colbert at ¶ 8. … No. 07CA0009-M, 2008-Ohio-3214 , 2008 WL 2582990 . {¶ 9} The parties agree that absent an applicable exception under R.C. 2744.02(B), the city qualifies for the blanket grant of immunity provided by R.C. 2744.02(A)(1).

Samadder v. Ohio State Univ. Wexner Med. Ctr.

2024 Ohio 6104 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2024

Samadder argues that the Court of Claims erred in finding OSUWMC sustained its burden of proof to establish qualified civil immunity under Am.Sub.H.B. No. 606. Dr. Samadder argues that Am.Sub.H.B. … No. 606(B)(1) establishes qualified civil immunity, but Am.Sub.H.B.

State v. Brown

114 N.E.3d 228 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2018

Appellee contended that he “clearly had some type of plan formed once he re-establishe[d his] relationship” with PCRC. … The amendment added R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b), which grants immunity to “a qualified individual.” See R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(f) (describing R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) as granting immunity).

Bremiller v. Cleveland Psychiatric Institute

898 F. Supp. 572 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 1995

Furthermore, Defendants argue that this Court erred in applying Second Circuit caselaw to meet the clearly-established test. In order to deny Defendants qualified immunity, this Court must find two things. … Defendants’ alleged actions defeat any entitlement to qualified immunity.

Shelton v. Wallace

886 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 19, 1995

Qualified and Absolute Immunity The Supreme Court has recognized the doctrines of qualified and absolute immunity as defenses to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability. Buckley v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official is not subject to liability for the performance of his discretionary functions when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Noffsinger v. Landers

196 F. Supp. 3d 746 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 22, 2016

if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In short, to decide whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity a court must determine whether plaintiff has shown the official violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” when he or

Hayes v. Columbus

2014 Ohio 2076 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 15, 2014

Qualified immunity thus applies only to federal claims. See Bodager v. Campbell, 4th Dist. No. 12CA828, 2013-Ohio-4650, ¶ 30; Roe v. … Chapter 2744, which applies to state law claims, and the federal doctrine of qualified immunity, which applies solely to federal claims").