Case law

Abby Martin v. Chancellor for The Board of Regents of The University System Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2023

Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1288 n.11 (1999) (“This Circuit has held that dicta cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.”); Hamilton v. … For a broad, clearly established principle to prevent qualified immunity from applying, “the principle must be established with ‘obvious clarity’ by the case law so that ‘every objectively reasonable

Wooten v. Campbell

49 F.3d 696 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 1995

Under the qualified immunity standards, Wooten fails to demonstrate that the defendants violated a clearly established right. It was not  I. … Under the qualified immunity defense, the defendants are immune from liability if Wooten's complaint fails to state a violation of a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable person

David Carter v. Timothy Filbeck

821 F.3d 1310 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2016

An official like Filbeck, who asserts entitlement to qualified immunity, must first establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. … Overcoming the official’s qualified-immunity defense requires a plaintiff to establish both that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutionally protected right and that the right was clearly established at the time

Moses Stryker v. City of Homewood

978 F.3d 769 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 20, 2020

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … violated was clearly established.”

Alex Wayne Morton v. Jeremy Kirkwood

707 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Qualified immunity does not apply where the facts show that the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and where the law clearly established those rights at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Kirkwood would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity unless Morton can show that the law clearly established his rights at the time of the putative misconduct. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

William J. Harrell, Patricia Parker, and Karen Schamm v. United States of America, Ltjg Atkin

875 F.2d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1989

Qualified Immunity A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability when the acts complained of violate no clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Moreover, appellant argues that his actions were within the limits of clearly established law, thus entitling him to immunity with respect to the constitutional torts. 2 Lt.

Robert R. Rowe v. Fort Lauderdale

279 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2002

Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … But, by assuming the role of an investigator, he took on a qualified immunity that protected all of his actions in performing that role that did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person in his

United States v. Reid

139 F.3d 1367 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

Other than this brief comment, nothing in the record tells us why the court concluded that the appellant did not qualify for a § 5C1.2 reduction. … Furthermore, the evidence in the record does not clearly establish that he did not qualify.

Sims v. Metropolitan Dade County

972 F.2d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1992

The current doctrine covers the state official’s discretionary actions with the cloak of qualified immunity so long as the official’s actions do not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have … ’s actions violated clearly established rights.

Willingham v. Loughnan

261 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

The Officer Defendants argue, most substantively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their acts violated no clearly established law at the pertinent time. … established preexisting law for qualified immunity purposes.

Henry Caraballo-Sandoval and Cree Carmen Caraballo v. R.E. Honsted

35 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1994

Qualified immunity and stay of discovery Caraballo-Sandoval and Cooper contend that clearly established law extended the First Amendment right to freedom of association to visitation privileges. … Qualified immunity protects government official performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Courson v.

Tammy D. Scarbrough v. Bryant Myles, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2001

Because Hall violated no clearly established 8 Our inquiry in qualified-immunity analysis is whether the government actor's conduct violated clearly established law and not whether an arrestee's conduct … In addressing discretionary-function immunity and qualified immunity, our court has stated that "[u]nder both Alabama law and federal law, the core issue is whether a defendant violated clearly established law."

Haygood v. Johnson

70 F.3d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 4, 1995

clearly established federal law. … McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1497-98 & n. 32 (11th Cir.1991) (law can be "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes by decisions of U.S.

Michelin D. McKee v. James Montiel

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 2025

Such a violation would also violate clearly established law, as required to overcome qualified immunity. … See Hall, 975 F.3d at 1275 (explaining that to defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a “clearly established” constitutional right).

J. Pearl Bussey-Morice v. Ivette Gomez

587 F. App'x 621 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 1, 2014

Toward that end, qualified immunity protects government officials engaged in discretionary functions and sued in their individual capacities unless they violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights … Faced with these facts, we affirmed summary judgment in favor of the officers on qualified-immunity grounds because we concluded that the law was not clearly established that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional

Lancaster v. Monroe County

116 F.3d 1419 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 11, 1997

Government officials performing discretionary ftmctions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Because the law clearly established that such conduct violated a pre-trial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Colin A. Edwards v. Bryan C. Shanley

666 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … As a result, Officer Shanley cannot claim qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not know he was violating Edwards’s constitutional rights.5 In sum, we hold that clearly established federal law prohibits

Zeigler v. Jackson

716 F.2d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 1983

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that public officials whose positions entail the exercise of discretion enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability in … In order to show that a defendant exercising broad discretionary power lacked good faith, plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Harlow v.

United States v. Rosales-Bruno

676 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2012

From there, Rosales-Bruno argues that the government failed to establish that he did, in fact, employ “physical force” when he committed the offense of false imprisonment. … We find, however, that Rosales-Bruno clearly objected to specific parts of Paragraph 30 of the PSR, disputing the factual accuracy of that paragraph’s description of the conduct underlying his false imprisonment conviction

Germaine Smart v. COII Ronald England

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 16, 2024

He found that qualified immunity barred Smart’s complaint because no clearly established law pro- hibited the officials from disciplining Smart. … Defendants cannot benefit from the shield of qualified immunity by arguing the law was not clearly established.