Case law

C.C. v. Monroe County Board of Education

427 F. App'x 781 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 25, 2011

Before us now is Payne’s interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity. We analyze a government official’s assertion of qualified immunity in two parts. … When plaintiffs fail to allege a constitutional violation, however, a court need not reach the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. Cottone v.

Melanie Williams v. Matthew Sirmons

307 F. App'x 354 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 2009

To avoid summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … The court said: “The law has been clearly established since at least the Supreme Court’s decision in Carroll v.

Marietta Sampson v. City of Brunswick

549 F. App'x 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In short, because we conclude that the plaintiffs have failed to show any violation of their constitutional rights (much less that the violation was clearly established), the district court did not err in granting qualified

Charlton H. Forrester, Jr. v. Timothy Stanley

394 F. App'x 673 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2010

“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 … “To invoke qualified immunity, the official first must establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority” when the alleged violation occurred. Id. at 1325.

Schwier v. Cox

340 F.3d 1284 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2003

Ct. at 2275.5 As for the factors of Blessing, the language of section 7 is clearly intended to benefit individuals, as discussed above; is specific rather than amorphous; and is clearly mandatory. … Next, as required by Blessing, the statute clearly provides rights which are specific and not amorphous.

Robert Kopperud v. Dexter Mabry

573 F. App'x 828 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2014

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Thus, to avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show both that Mabry violated a federal right and that the right was already clearly established when Mabry acted. See id.

Michael Davidson v. City of Opelika, Alabama

675 F. App'x 955 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 17, 2017

But qualified immunity “offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Davidson has failed to establish that Hancock violated his constitutional rights, so we need not examine whether those rights were clearly established.

Theodore Dukes v. Miami-Dade County

232 F. App'x 907 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 10, 2007

Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights. … If a constitutional violation is alleged, the final step of the qualified immunity analysis is whether the right was clearly established. Id.

Sherry Michelle Turner v. Luis E. Ochoa

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 2024

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for govern- ment officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their con- duct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … The test for whether a violation is so obvious as to be clearly established without on- point case law -- under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis -- is whether “every reasonable officer

Annie Williams v. Adrienne Taylor-Lee

397 F. App'x 608 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2010

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity de novo. Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317, 1324-25 (11th Cir. 2009). … Even in the absence of probable cause, however, “an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if arguable probable cause existed.” Case, 555 F.3d at 1327.

Jane McMillan v. DeKalb County, Georgia

211 F. App'x 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 6, 2006

established law. … Drew argues that the district court engaged impermissibly in abstractions when it denied qualified immunity based on the general proposition that the right to be free from racial discrimination was clearly established

Johnnie Fitzgerald Howard v. Robert Melton

538 F. App'x 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for torts committed while performing their discretionary duties, unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Deputy Melton has not established, for purposes of qualified immunity, that he conducted a reasonable investigation before charging Howard with battery on a law enforcement officer.

James R. Sada v. City of Altamonte Springs

434 F. App'x 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 15, 2011

The Supreme Court has declared that the test of “clearly established” law cannot apply at a high level of generality; instead, to deny qualified immunity, “the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been … ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence 7 more relevant, sense.”

Constance Jiles v. Angie Rebecca Lowery

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 15, 2023

Nevertheless, we affirmed the grant of qualified immunity to the deputies in Coffin because it was not clearly established at the time that their actions violated the Fourth Amendment. … Because the unlawfulness of Lowery’s conduct was clearly established at the time of Jiles’s arrest, the dis- trict court did not err in denying qualified immunity to Lowery.

Ronald A. Williams v. Daniel Santana

340 F. App'x 614 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2009

To be entitled to qualified immunity, a defendant must first establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. Mathews v. … Because Barazal has alleged that Parker violated his clearly established constitutional rights, the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings.

Christopher Uriah Alsobrook v. Sergeant Alvarado

656 F. App'x 489 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2016

The only remaining question is whether that right was clearly established as of June 6, 2009. … A 1985 opinion by this Court clearly established the law relevant to this appeal. In Aldridge v.

Park v. City of Atlanta

120 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 1997

. § 1986. 3 not establish a violation of § 1986 without establishing a violation of § 1985.4 It concluded that Appellants had failed to demonstrate that Appellees were involved … In a similar vein, the Third Circuit recently explained: The text of § 1986 clearly states that neglecting or refusing to prevent a § 1985 conspiracy is actionable.

Chalanda Cabbil v. Kevin McKenzie

595 F. App'x 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 4, 2014

“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 dismissal, the plaintiff’s allegations must establish both (1) a constitutional violation and (2) that the violation was clearly established. Keating, 598 F.3d at 762.

John Woodruff vs Trussville, City of, Don Sivley, Eric Adams

434 F. App'x 852 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 18, 2011

The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that (1) the facts, as alleged and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establish a constitutional violation and (2) the constitutional right violated clearly … was established.

Kitchen v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

6 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 8, 1993

to allocate county funds to close the bridge rather than repair it.” 30 The Court of Appeals explained: Should the county decide when a street should be opened, closed, or repaired, or when a sewer should be built, it is clearly … A constitutional amendment that rewrote this paragraph was approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting in the general election on November 6, 1990.