Case law

Cook v. City of Cincinnati

103 Ohio App. 3d 80 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 31, 1995

This right is known in law as qualified immunity. Qualified immunity in this context is a question of federal law. State law immunity has no application to a 1983 claim. … The United States Supreme Court has stated that “unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Michaels v. City of Vermillion

539 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 22, 2008

He is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if this particular right is not ‘clearly established.’ … Manigold, the Sixth Circuit denied qualified immunity, holding that a jury could find that the officer's use of a taser violated the suspect’s “clearly established Fourth Amendment right.”

Treadway v. Columbus Police Department

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 2025

Qualified Immunity “shields government officials in the performance of discretionary functions from standing trial for civil liability unless their actions violate clearly established rights.” DiLuzio v. … The next step of the qualified immunity analysis asks us to determine whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Fisher v. Columbus

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2024

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery … Fisher to “establish that [his] conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in his position would have clearly understood that he was under an affirmative duty to refrain from such conduct.” Id.

Meekison v. Voinovich

17 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 1998

Meekison’s Claim Under the ADA To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Meekison must show: (1) she was disabled within the meaning of the statute at the time of her employment; (2) she was qualified to perform the … Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie ease under the ADEA, Meekison must show the following: a) membership in the protected class (between the ages of 40 and 70); b) that she applied and was qualified for a promotion

Triomphe Investors v. City of Northwood

835 F. Supp. 1036 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 29, 1993

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … known that they were violating plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional right.

Abdulsalaam v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

637 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 23, 2009

qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

Novak v. City of Parma

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Seitzinger, 363 F. 3d 645, 648 (7th Cir. 2004) (awarding officer qualified immunity and holding that the officer’s consultation with prosecutor “goes far” to establish qualified immunity); Dixon v.

Krzywkowski v. Mohr

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 28, 2025

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … on grounds of qualified immunity.

Kremer v. Cox

114 Ohio App. 3d 41 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 1996

We further note that, since Cox’s statements were made in his capacity as coroner, they are protected by a qualified immunity codified in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). … QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE Cox asserts that the statements of which Kremer complains were made in Cox’s official capacity as coroner. Therefore, he claims, a “qualified privilege” attaches to them.

McDougald v. Clagg

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 5, 2021

In other words, plaintiffs must articulate why the asserted constitutional rights count as “clearly established,” or else qualified immunity bars those claims. … retaliation claim, McDougald once again waived the clearly-established prong of qualified immunity with respect to that claim.

Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 2025

“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 … Although Smedley was not entitled to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, the record before the Court on summary judgment establishes he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ketring v. City of Loveland, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 6, 2023

right was clearly established at the time of the offense. … Once a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right and showing that the right was clearly established.

Thompson v. Ohio State University

990 F. Supp. 2d 801 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 6, 2014

It is not necessarily true that the exact factual circumstances alleged in a given case must have been found to be a constitutional violation before a right can be “clearly established” for purposes of a qualified immunity … Salimbene’s claim of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that a public official’s retaliation against an individual for exercising First Amendment rights violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2023

Dismissing for qualified immunity on this ground is sometimes difficult because the clearly established inquiry may turn on case-specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery.” Id. at 765. … In sum, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is proper when the “complaint establishes the defense.” Siefert v.

Bethel v. Warden

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 5, 2022

Qualified Immunity. Bethel also asks the Court to reconsider its decision granting Defendant Smith qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonably

Wolfe v. Hocking County Sheriff's Department

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2024

Sept. 8, 2021) (affirming a grant of qualified immunity on the clearly established prong where officers searched the plaintiff’s home and seized property listed in a divorce order); Bates v. … Because Defendants raise qualified immunity, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts showing that (1) Defendants’ conduct violated his Second Amendment right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time.

Miller v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2025

“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 … Both are entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Simpson v. Rivera

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2023

In sum, qualified immunity hinges on: (1) whether there was a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the incident. Saucier v. … Ct. at 8 (exploring qualified immunity’s “clearly established” prong in the context of excessive force claim).

Ellison v. Martin

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 30, 2020

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … The right to be free from arrest without probable cause was clearly established in 2016 for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. See, e.g., Radvansky v.