Case law

Skelly v. Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners

456 F. App'x 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 2012

violation occurs is clearly established to be a violation of the Constitution . . . .” … immunity because the constitutional right was not clearly established.

Vance R. Johnson v. Sheriff R.L. Butch Conway

688 F. App'x 700 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 2017

Qualified Immunity A public official sued in his or her individual capacity may assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Because Johnson has not shown that the detention officers violated a clearly established right in the specific context of this case, we affirm the grant of qualified immunity to Revels, Bailey, and Davis. B.

June Scott v. Ossie Battle

688 F. App'x 674 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 2017

We now turn to the second prong of our qualified immunity analysis, whether the violation was clearly established such that Battle had “fair warning” that the 9 … Clearly Established Law A constitutional right may be clearly established at the time of arrest when a “controlling and materially similar case declares the official’s conduct unconstitutional.”

Adria Hill v. Orange County Sheriff

666 F. App'x 836 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2016

Further, “[i]n this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … Officers facing supervisory liability claims are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff states a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Harper v.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Garden City

235 F.3d 1325 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2000

municipal immunity—except to the extent that the City obtained insurance to cover it." … why its agreement to indemnify CSX was void, but lack of insurance was not one of them.8 The district court's opinion, which found the lack of insurance fatal to the agreement, was the first time the issue was clearly

United States v. Stan Carlin

698 F.2d 1133 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 22, 1983

On its facts, the case sub judice is clearly distinguishable. In Hoffman v. … we turn to the requirement that corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

United States v. John Weaver, Thomas D. Sikes

905 F.2d 1466 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 13, 1990

Further, Sikes argues that the trial court’s ruling that the May 14, 1987 letter from Sikes’ counsel to the government was an attempt on Sikes’ behalf to extend the period of immunity was clearly erroneous. … is not clearly erroneous.

Mitchell v. Farcass

112 F.3d 1483 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 6, 1997

P. 12(c), the defense of immunity is an affirmative defense, which should be asserted in an adversarial setting. … Some courts have required plaintiffs responding to assert specific facts addressing the defense of qualified immunity in a special reply under Rule 7, governing notice pleading. See, e.g., Schultea v.

Jerri Macri v. James Brower

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2025

if she does not violate clearly established rights. … As a result, the unlawfulness of [the defendant-detec- tive’s] conduct was clearly established when he acted [in 2017] and he was not entitled to qualified immun- ity.

United States v. Phillip E. Hill

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 2011

Powers clearly has not made that showing. … The government responded to Rector’s supplemental motion by arguing that it was the well-established policy of the United States Attorney’s Office to grant only direct use immunity, not derivative use immunity, in proffer

Michael Bratt v. Steven George

660 F. App'x 837 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 2016

A public official may immediately appeal a denial of qualified immunity where, as here, the disputed issue involves whether the defendant's conduct constitutes a violation of clearly established law. … In Coffin, we considered whether the law was clearly established that Fourth Amendment protection extended to open and attached garages for qualified-immunity purposes. Id. at 1003-05.

Charles Edward Ctr. v. Sec'y, Dep't of Homeland Sec., Customs & Border Prot. Agency

895 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 19, 2018

Most important to this appeal, the Compensation Act provides injured employees with qualified rights to reinstatement after a workplace injury. See id. § 8151. … The benefits and procedures established in the Compensation Act are largely immune from judicial review.

Robert Moran v. Bill Cameron

362 F. App'x 88 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2010

The “clearly-established” standard means that even if the arresting officer lacks probable cause, he is still entitled to qualified immunity if there was “arguable probable cause for the arrest, which is a more lenient … [are] specific enough to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances and to overcome qualified immunity, even in total absence of case law.

Tina Diane Windham v. City of Fairhope

597 F. App'x 1068 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2015

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from suit unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … “To avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the plaintiff’s allegations, supported by admissible evidence, must demonstrate both (1) a constitutional violation and (2) that the violation was clearly established

Luis Alexander, III v. K. Bell

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2024

Bell moved for summary judgment, asserting that he was entitled to qualified immunity because his force was objectively reasonable, and he did not violate Alexander’s clearly established constitutional … Thus, the cases are not sufficiently analogous to clearly establish a constitutional right here.

Brian Mead v. Doug Pierce

571 F. App'x 788 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2014

Second, we ask whether the right was clearly established at the time of an officer’s alleged misconduct. Id. … Falsifying facts to establish probable cause is clearly unconstitutional and has been “clearly established” long before Mead’s arrest. Kingsland, 382 F.3d at 1232 (11th Cir. 2004).

Campbell v. GA Dept. of Corrections

169 F.3d 1353 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 1999

The magistrate judge's order and the parties' briefs focus almost exclusively on qualified immunity and the question of whether, at the time of Defendants' actions, the law clearly established that Plaintiff's rights were … However, Cottrell and Adams show that even in interlocutory appeals limited strictly to qualified immunity issues, the same procedure is permissible. In another qualified immunity interlocutory appeal, Dolihite v.

Michael Libby v. United States

840 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 21, 1988

In this case, the district court’s jurisdiction over the suit could be established only if the requirements of section 742 were met. … Moreover, if this case is considered in terms of a numerical graph established by previous cases, it clearly falls at a point closer to the 18 days which was approved of in Gajewski, 540 F.Supp. at 384 , than it does to the

Paula Whitcomb v. Sumter County Board of Education

453 F. App'x 879 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 2011

Primm appeals the district court’s decision that he is not entitled to qualified immunity and the Board appeals the district court’s decision that municipal liability exists if Whitcomb establishes discrimination. … Qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial . . . . when a government actor’s discretionary conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Koch v.

Vann K. Howard and Kathryn D. Howard v. Parisian, Inc., Etc. Parisian Employees Health Care Plan Hahn Shoe Company Protective Life Insurance Company

807 F.2d 1560 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 20, 1987

In Mitchell, the Supreme Court held that the issue of a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity is collateral to the merits even though the court must consider the plaintiff’s factual allegations in resolving the issue … However, a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity is not subject to the harmless error doctrine; therefore, the relaxed standard in Mitchell did not modify Richardson-Merrell and Flanagan.