Case law

Cannavino v. Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland, L.L.C.

2017 Ohio 380 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2017

Williams contends that he is shielded from such claims under qualified immunity. … if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Elfers v. Varnau

101 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2015

Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The court held that because this right was not “clearly established,” the coroner was entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim brought after the wrong body was delivered to the family of the decedent.

In Re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation

874 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 1995

of a qualified immunity defense. … The task of determining what makes a right “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity has been accurately labeled a “labyrinth”. See Long v. Norris, 929 F.2d 1111, 1114 (6th Cir.1991).

Mallin v. City of Eastlake

755 F. Supp. 2d 819 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2010

Violation of a Clearly Established Right Thompson may still be entitled to qualified immunity if Mallin’s right to be free from having his face slammed into a car and being choked was not clearly established at the time of … Because Mallín failed to carry his burden of proving that a reasonable officer should have known that Gonzales’s actions violated a clearly established right, the Court must grant Gonzales qualified immunity as a matter of

Ferguson v. Leiter

220 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, the “plaintiff is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Dominque v.

Chappell v. City of Cleveland

584 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2008

In general, qualified immunity applies when government officials’ conduct in performing discretionary functions “does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The Saucier Test For Qualified Immunity In Saucier v.

Fairman v. Konteh

361 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2005

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If so — if the constitutional right was clearly established, the defendant cannot maintain the defense of qualified immunity. C.

Putnam v. Davies

169 F.R.D. 89 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 1996

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Both Plaintiff and Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the issue of the availability of qualified immunity to shield Defendants from liability for damages. … 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

Crawford v. Columbus State Community College

196 F. Supp. 3d 766 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 11, 2016

Qualified Immunity The defendants’ qualified-immunity argument similarly lacks merit. 3 Defendants argue that because there was no “clearly established law supporting Crawford’s attempt to assert an age discrimination claim … Accordingly, the Court will only address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether that right was "clearly established.”

Leisure v. City of Cincinnati

267 F. Supp. 2d 848 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 6, 2003

Qualified Immunity for Defendant Roach Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects “government officials acting in their official capacities from damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or … The second step in qualified immunity analysis is to ask whether the alleged constitutional violations were clearly established at the time of the shooting of Timothy Thomas.

Johari v. City of Columbus Police Department

186 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 23, 2002

Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff first must “identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated” and second, “establish that a reasonable officer in the … The burden then shifts “to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant[’]s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in the defendant[’]s position [ ] would have clearly understood that [he] w[as

Stevenson v. Owens State Community College

562 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 25, 2008

The key inquiry in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … As such, this Court finds that the Individual Defendants are protected by qualified immunity. IV.

Hummel v. City of Carlisle

229 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 23, 2002

established right, qualified immunity cannot attach on summary judgment. 882 F.2d at 215-16 . … The ultimate, more particularized question in the qualified immunity context is whether Hummel had a clearly established right under the facts as he states them. This case falls into the realm of Brandenburg .

Boyer v. City of Mansfield

3 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 21, 1998

Whether or not qualified immunity exists in a given case is a legal question for the court, unless there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant committed acts that would violate a clearly established … unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.”

Peelman v. Delaware Joint Vocational School District Board of Education

763 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 3, 1991

Fitzgerald involved the application and scope of the qualified immunity of federal executive officials arising under federal law, some questioned the applicability of the Harlow decision to a defense of qualified immunity … Therefore, because the same facts which would establish the validity of the plaintiff’s claim under § 1983, would serve to deny the defendants the protection afforded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, the defendants

King v. Williams

5 Ohio St. 3d 137 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1983

The issue presented in this case is whether the driver of an emergency medical services vehicle operated by the city of Akron, and the city itself, qualify for immunity from liability under R.C. 701.02. … Appellee Williams was clearly employed by the city of Akron as a member of the fire department. In addition, the evidence is uncontradicted that the ambulance was on an emergency run at the time of the accident.

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1292 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because Holbrook did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights; Holbrook’s inspection of the records was within her discretionary authority

State v. Sieminski

92 N.E.3d 1252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2017

“A statute must clearly proclaim its own retroactivity to overcome the presumption of prospective application. Retroactivity is not to be inferred.” State v. … Sieminski’s motion to dismiss because she is not a qualified individual pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii), and therefore not eligible for immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b).

Rockwood v. Shoen

145 F. Supp. 3d 718 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 6, 2015

Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment on this claim on the ground of qualified immunity. … Courts generally use a two-step analysis to address the potential applicability of qualified immunity.

Magrum v. Meinke

332 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The officer, however, was still entitled to qualified immunity because the court could not “say that it was clearly established as of February 20, 2001, that a police officer may not detain an individual exiting a house reportedly