Case law

Jones v. Marcum

197 F. Supp. 2d 991 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 11, 2002

is per se violative of a “clearly established” right. … The ultimate, more particularized question in the qualified immunity context is whether Jones’ had a clearly established right under the facts as he states them. This case falls into the realm of Brandenburg .

Lucas v. The City of Reynoldsburg

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 2025

because they violated no clearly established right. … Thus, an official sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the

Washington v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 7, 2024

That is enough for the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (requiring cases proffered as factually analogous “to speak [] to the specific circumstances” at bar for the clearly established prong of qualified immunity).

Bettio v. Village of Northfield

775 F. Supp. 1545 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 18, 1991

asserted is clearly established. … As such, there being no clearly established right in existence as to this portion of the claim, Satola and Varga do not lose the protection of qualified immunity here.

Aluizio v. Van Kanegan

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 8, 2025

Qualified Immunity Van Kanegan argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because Aulizio cannot establish a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Ludt v. Youngstown

2016 Ohio 8553 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2016

City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 302 (6th Cir.2005). {¶13} Once qualified immunity is raised, it is the plaintiff's burden of proof to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, we need not consider whether Williams is protected by qualified immunity.

Fenstermaker v. City of Dayton, Ohio

712 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 17, 1988

, but also [in order to find a claim of qualified immunity to be well taken] that it was not clearly established that the circumstances under which the official or officer was confronted at the time of the challenged action … Qualified immunity protects the individual police officers from liability under federal law for their official actions, if said actions do not violate clearly established legal, statutory or constitutional rights.

Ford v. Retter

840 F. Supp. 489 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 6, 1993

The deputies are clearly entitled to qualified immunity.”); Jones v. City of Upper Arlington, 986 F.2d 1421 (6th Cir.1993); Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331 (6th Cir.1993). … It also seems that once you have determined the need for the defense of [qualified immunity], ... as a matter of law ... the officer has acted unreasonably ... and has violated clearly established law. Yates v.

Hicks v. Leffler

119 Ohio App. 3d 424 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1997

First, with regard to immunity for a federal claim, in order to defeat a defendant’s motion for summary judgment under a qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have … Taken together, Hunter and Harlow stand for the proposition that, where the law has been clearly established, a mistaken decision made in extraordinary circumstances may not lead to loss of immunity.

Jaeger v. Wracker

21 Ohio App. 3d 150 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1985

Fitzgerald (1982), 457 U.S. 800 , 818-819: “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … fireman, the trustees cannot claim a qualified immunity.

Crawford v. Geiger

996 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2014

/A 4 The Sixth Circuit has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity and related principles: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … Even if there is such right, they argue, that right has yet to be clearly established, so the doctrine of qualified immunity entitles the on scene officers, even if they impaired any such right, to dismissal. i.

City of Akron v. Brown

122 N.E.3d 672 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2018

(Emphasis added.) {¶ 8} The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2925. … Brown had qualified for immunity and, consequently, dismissal of a charge for minor drug possession, any allied offenses would not "merge" for that purpose and there would be no grounds to extend immunity or dismiss any charges

Summerville v. City of Forest Park

195 Ohio App. 3d 13 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2011

Qualified Immunity {¶17} Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at … Moreover, she failed to demonstrate that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. {¶34} Therefore, we hold that Pape and Hall are entitled to qualified immunity on Summerville’s Section 1983 claims against them

Zar v. Payne

760 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity The Defendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity forecloses the Plaintiffs claims for warrantless entry into her home and use of excessive force. … According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Leibson v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

84 Ohio App. 3d 751 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

Qualified immunity shields government officials under the objective standard which tests whether their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

F. Buddie Contracting, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Community College District

31 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability or civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, it is clear that the existence of an authorizing state law does not alter the qualified immunity analysis.

Williams v. Miniard

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 27, 2023

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the rights to be free from unduly tight restraints and from gratuitous violence when already restrained is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes.”); Kostrzewa v.

Garvey v. Vermilion

2012 Ohio 1258 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2012

‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the  5 allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’” … be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”

Mumford v. Zieba

788 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 1992

Finally, Judge Zieba argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford’s damages claims because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be discharged based on his political affiliations. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In his motion for summary judgment, Judge Zieba contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Mumford’s claim for damages because the law did not clearly establish whether Mumford could be terminated

Bell v. City of Cleveland

548 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2008

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. … and 2) that the right violated was clearly established.