The Ohio Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) regarding immunity claims related to a civil lawsuit filed by students. The court ruled that the appeal did not involve a final, appealable order. This decision affects the ongoing legal battle between the university and the plaintiffs, who allege civil assault and battery.
The case, titled Alkayali v. Case W. Res. Univ., was filed on October 15, 2026, under docket number 115926. The plaintiffs, Ameer Alkayali, Weilin Fang, and Kevin Kennelly, allege that their rights were violated during a protest on CWRU's campus. They claim that university police officers allowed painters to cover a mural with pro-Palestine messages while the students were present.
The lawsuit stems from an incident that occurred on May 7, 2024, when the plaintiffs protested the painting over of a mural known as the “Spirit Wall.” The complaint alleges that the university police stood by as the painters covered the mural under the supervision of university officials. The plaintiffs argue that this action constituted civil assault and battery, claiming that the university should be held liable under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior.
In the initial stages of the case, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 14, 2025. Subsequently, CWRU and its police officers filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that they were entitled to immunity under Ohio law. On November 18, 2025, the trial court denied this motion, stating that there were potential facts that could entitle the plaintiffs to relief.
The university then appealed the trial court’s decision. The court of appeals, led by Judge Timothy W. Clary, concluded that the appeal was not valid because the trial court’s order did not deny a political subdivision the benefit of an alleged immunity. The court emphasized that for an order to be appealable, it must be a final decision. Judge Clary stated, “the trial court’s order denying CWRU’s motion to dismiss was not a final, appealable order.”
The court's ruling hinged on whether CWRU qualifies as a political subdivision under Ohio law, which would grant it immunity from liability. The court determined that CWRU is a private university and does not fall under the definition of a political subdivision as outlined in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2744.
Under Ohio law, a political subdivision is defined as a municipal corporation, township, school district, or other body corporate responsible for governmental activities in a geographic area smaller than that of the state. The court found that CWRU does not meet this definition, as it is a private institution not owned or controlled by the state.
The court also referenced a previous Ohio Supreme Court decision that recognized the police department of a private university as a public office for certain legal purposes, such as public records requests. However, the court noted that this designation does not automatically grant the university immunity under the political subdivision statute.
The court's decision highlights the distinction between private universities and political subdivisions, emphasizing that the existence of a campus police department does not transform a private institution into a political entity. The court pointed out that Ohio law specifically differentiates between private colleges and political subdivisions, reinforcing that CWRU's police department does not qualify for immunity under the statute.
As a result of this ruling, the appeal has been dismissed, and the case will continue in the lower court. The plaintiffs will have the opportunity to present their claims against CWRU and its police officers in court.
The outcome of this case could have implications for other private universities in Ohio, particularly regarding their liability in similar situations. If CWRU's police department is not considered a political subdivision, it may set a precedent for how other private institutions are treated under Ohio law in terms of liability and immunity.
Looking ahead, the plaintiffs may pursue their claims in the lower court, and the defendants may seek further legal strategies to address the allegations. The court's dismissal of the appeal does not preclude the university from raising other defenses in the ongoing litigation.