Case law

Roderic R. McDowell v. Pernell Brown

392 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 8, 2004

McDowell conceded that the sheriff’s deputies he named in his suit were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. … Merikangas clearly included a discussion on the nurses’ standard of care in his deposition testimony, and Dr. Gower offered that the “standard of care really should have elected the most rapid transport” to Grady.

Miles v. Naval Aviation Museum Foundation, Inc.

289 F.3d 715 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2002

The district court’s findings of fact must be accepted unless they are clearly erroneous. Andrews v. United States, 121 F.3d 1430 (11th Cir. 1997). IV. … The FTCA’s waiver of immunity is subject to several exceptions, including a discretionary function exception. Id. at § 2680(a).

Charles Flowers v. Troup County, Georgia, School District

803 F.3d 1327 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2015

Precedent makes it abundantly clear that qualified immunity should have been granted to seven of the ten individual defendants, Troup County School District officials who were caught up in Flowers’s trawl by their sheer proximity … Allowing the board members to remain in the proceedings, then, exposes these individuals to exactly the sort of burdensome costs that qualified-immunity doctrine is designed to eliminate.

Luis Artiga v. Officer Richard Garcia

316 F. App'x 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 22, 2008

Ferraro: Qualified immunity offers “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as ‘their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … Artiga’s evidence, which must be believed at the summary judgment stage, would demonstrate a violation of his clearly established rights for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.

Uboh v. Reno

141 F.3d 1000 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 1998

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the claims were time-barred, the federal defendants were entitled either to absolute or qualified immunity, and the allegations were insufficient to state … The district court went on to find that the plaintiff had failed to show that he was unaware of the 3 The defendants also reassert their arguments regarding absolute and qualified immunity.

Krysten Garner v. Warren Baltes

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2023

to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields officials acting within their dis- cretionary authority from liability when their conduct does not vi- olate a federal right that was clearly established when it occurred.

Willie Barnett v. Florence, Alabama, City of

409 F. App'x 266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 1, 2010

“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 … Courts utilize a two-part framework to evaluate qualified immunity claims.3 One inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Hope v.

Joseph M. Nadler v. Frederick (Fritz) Mann, United States of America

951 F.2d 301 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 17, 1992

In contrast, we adopt the factual findings underlying the district court’s conclusion unless they are clearly erroneous. See International Ins. Co., 874 F.2d at 1453 . … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the federal employee’s challenged conduct exceeded the scope of his employment.

National Association v. Board of Regents

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2011

The district court held that, although Congress did clearly express through a legislative statement its intent to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity, it did not act pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority … These “established state procedure[s]” are typically established for the purpose of depriving citizens of their property. Rittenhouse, 764 F.2d at 1455.

Robert Brinson v. Norman Larsen

650 F. App'x 733 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 27, 2016

The district court found that DeKalb County police officers Norman Larsen, Robert Summe, and George Miller were entitled to (1) qualified immunity for Brinson’s Fourth Amendment claim, and (2) official immunity for Brinson … /2016 Page: 3 of 3 detainment violated clearly established law.

Georgia Department of Revenue v. Burke

146 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 22, 1998

However, there are certain well-established exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity. First, a state may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity and consent to suit in federal court. See Atascadero State Hosp. v. … I, section 2, paragraph 9 of the Georgia Constitution clearly provides that the constitution's limited waiver of sovereign immunity does not include the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the debtors have identified

Victor Underwood and Carmen Edwards, for Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Nell Hunter

730 F.2d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 10, 1984

Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State. … Neither their impartiality nor the passage of time, however, can render immune a purposefully discriminatory scheme whose invidious effects still reverberate today.

Schrade Jones v. USA

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 30, 2026

Plaintiffs have not shown that Thacker is clearly on point or directly conflicts with our caselaw. … “When established governmental policy, as expressed or implied by stat- ute, regulation, or agency guidelines, allows a Government agent to exercise discretion, it must be presumed that the agent’s

Carl M. Murdock, Jr. v. Wanda Robinson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 31, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “as long as their conduct violates no clearly established stat- utory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Where an ap- peal raises an “abstract issue of law relating to qualified immun- ity — typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly in- fringed was clearly established” — we have interlocutory

Williams v. District Board of Trustees of Edison Community College

421 F.3d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2005

The state is responsible for the establishment of the system of public education “through laws, standards and rules.” Id. § 1000.03(3). … The state controls community colleges through the State Board of Education, an entity that is clearly an arm of the state.

United States v. Christian Schmidgall

25 F.3d 1533 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 14, 1994

Therefore the identification of Purvis clearly was free of any taint. As the magistrate judge noted, analysis of the Purvis statement for potential taint presents a more difficult problem. … The magistrate judge found that Purvis’ testimony was used only to establish that Schmidgall was at the hunting camp during the smuggling venture, *1539 a fact that was also established by the independent, untainted testimony

Carey A. Fortson v. City of Elberton

592 F. App'x 819 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 21, 2014

“Qualified immunity protects government officials who have acted within their discretionary authority from civil trials and other litigation burdens if their conduct violates not clearly established statutory or constitutional … To succeed on a § 1983 claim and overcome an officer’s assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the official in question (1) violated a federal right, (2) which was clearly established at the

Trolley Boats, LLC v. City of Holly Hill Florida

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2009

When assessing qualified immunity cases, we consider whether a constitutional right has been violated and whether the right was clearly established by the law at the time of the violation. Saucier v. … Ct. 538 (1992), in support of the “clearly established” prong even though the facts in Soldal can be fairly distinguished from those in the case before us.4 By summarily concluding that the law was clearly established,

Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. the Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel

657 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 21, 2011

The FSIA establishes two broad grants of immunity, which apply to different types of claims and are subject to different sets of exceptions. … Odyssey claims these cases 39 establish a sovereign may claim immunity in an in rem admiralty action only when the sovereign is in possession of the res.

Sandra P. WALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRUST COMPANY OF GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellee

946 F.2d 805 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 5, 1991

Wall was qualified and was Brown’s choice. … The findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. AFFIRMED. 1 .