Case law

MacKey v. Cleveland State University

837 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 20, 1993

Once a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must produce additional facts or allegations demonstrating that his constitutional rights were violated and “that these rights were so clearly established … Qualified immunity is available to the Trustees, Flower, Muczyk, and Konstantinos in their individual capacities since their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Pisoni v. McCord

2018 Ohio 64 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2018

Thereafter, the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish that the defendant’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in the defendant’s position would have clearly understood that he was under an … The question is whether Pisoni established McCord’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in McCord’s position (objectively measured) would have clearly understood he was under an affirmative

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.

Logan v. Sycamore Community School Board of Education

780 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity 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 … cannot violate clearly established constitutional rights as conduct that would “shock the conscience” (doc. 64).

Sample v. Bailey

337 F. Supp. 2d 1012 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 24, 2004

The qualified immunity doctrine provides “that governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A “Clearly Established” Right? To overcome the bar of quali-fied immunity, a plaintiff must show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.

Wettersten v. Chillicothe City School District Board of Education

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 27, 2022

Kammer, 955 F.3d 520, 540–41 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding parents’ right to make decisions concerning the care and custody of their children without government interference was clearly established). … City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015) (affirming decision that state statute and regulation excluding children not immunized from school during disease outbreak was constitutional despite parental objection).

Patton v. Wood County Humane Society

154 Ohio App. 3d 670 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2003

immunity from suit in a Section 1983 action so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

Kaylor v. Rankin

356 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2005

Qualified Immunity: Federal Law Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Rankin and Radde contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established constitutional right of which they were or reasonably should have been aware.

Cummerlander v. Patriot Preparatory Academy Inc.

86 F. Supp. 3d 808 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 2015

’ argument that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … In the context of school search and seizure, the Supreme Court in Safford set forth the standard for a clearly established law: A school official searching a student is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established

Scott v. City of Columbus, Unpublished Decision (3-30-2001)

Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2001

of clearly established law and the information that he possessed. … defendant's conduct did indeed violate clearly established rights).

Anthony v. Vaccaro

43 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 1999

Gilley, 957 F.2d 1347, 1348 (6th Cir.1992). of Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions as long as the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … 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

Williams v. Schismenos

258 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 2017

Qualified Immunity Analysis The defendant officers maintain that qualified immunity protects them from liability for all federal claims asserted against them in their individual capacities. … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Williams v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

145 Ohio App. 3d 530 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to immunity from suit in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

Vacha v. City of North Ridgeville

136 Ohio St. 3d 199 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2013

The court held that because an intentional tort may arise out of the employment relationship between a political subdivision and its employee, North Ridgeville did not establish that it was entitled to immunity as a matter … The court of appeals simply held that North Ridgeville did not establish entitlement to immunity as a matter of law. Id. at ¶ 23.

Roe v. Hamilton County Department of Human Services

53 Ohio App. 3d 120 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1988

“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a qualified immunity is appropriate, they should have an opportunity to show whether any clearly established constitutional or statutory standards were violated.

Buxton v. Nolte

473 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 2007

Since the facts do not give rise to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Officer Nolte is entitled to qualified immunity on the arrest without probable cause claim. b. … Officer Nolte is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Harvey v. Republic Services of Ohio II, 2007 Ca 00278 (3-23-2009)

2009 Ohio 1343 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. {¶ 21} "VI. … immunity if their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Stephens v. Hamilton County Jobs & Family Services

46 F. Supp. 3d 754 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 2, 2014

Qualified immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Sixth Circuit explained further: To overcome an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity, however, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless

Pierce v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections

284 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2003

Of course, the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional right advocated by the plaintiff is clearly established, not whether a defendant’s conduct is not clearly established. … The test for whether a right is clearly established was set out by the Supreme Court: “[C]learly established rights, for purpose of qualified immunity, are ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Pesek v. City of Brunswick

794 F. Supp. 768 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 1992

right asserted is clearly established. … violated a clearly established constitutional right.