Case law

Roger Shuler v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama

480 F. App'x 540 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 3, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability in their individual capacity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Shuler has not shown that any clearly established right has been violated.

Mat S. Baysa v. Charles Redinger

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2021

On appeal, Redinger argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Baysa’s lawsuit because his actions did not violate clearly established law. … The order did not set out the legal standards governing qualified immunity, did not discuss Redinger’s immunity arguments, and did not engage in any substantial analysis of whether Redinger’s actions violated clearly established

Omnipol, A.S. v. Christopher Worrell

32 F.4th 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2022

Haralson, 813 F.2d 370, 373–74 n.3 (11th Cir. 1987) (“[I]ssues that clearly are not designated in the appellant’s brief normally are deemed abandoned.”) (citing Rogero v. Noone, 704 F.2d 518, 520 n.1 (11th Cir. 1983)). … It is well established that the United States is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v.

Darrin Williams v. Dawn Morahan

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 11, 2013

Under well-established precedent, Officer Morahan is entitled to qualified immunity unless Mr. … None of those authorities, however, can create clearly established law for purposes of federal qualified immunity analysis. See Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1033 n.10 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Cf.

United States v. Rufino Robelo-Galo

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 17, 2026

We now hold that to establish eligibility for release under section 1B1.13(b)(3)(C) an inmate must demonstrate that no other person is qualified and free to provide the needed care. … We conclude that, to prove that he is the “only available caregiver,” an inmate must establish that no other likely caregiver is both (1) qualified and (2) free to provide care.

United States v. William J. McCorkle

321 F.3d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 2003

This means that the only assets that are potentially immunized from forfeiture are those for which value has been given. … This finding of fact is not clearly erroneous. See Marine Transp. Serv. Sea-Barge Group v. Python High Perf.

Juan B. Fernandez v. Metro Dade Police Dept.

397 F. App'x 507 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2010

“Qualified immunity protects public employees performing discretionary functions from the burdens of civil trials and from liability unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … violated a federally protected right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Simmons v. Conger

86 F.3d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

The district court clearly erred in awarding damages against Judge Conger in his individual capacity because he is entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages in this section 1983 case. … He clearly had jurisdiction over the Gosa matter, and there is no allegation to the contrary.

Oscar L. Washington, Sr. v. Timothy Bauer

149 F. App'x 867 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 2005

“Qualified immunity shields government officials executing discretionary responsibilities from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.

Richard Harley Scruggs v. Allen Lee

256 F. App'x 229 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 2007

The evaluation of a defense of qualified immunity involves three steps. … In the final step, the plaintiff must establish that the constitutional right was clearly established when the violation occurred. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S. Ct. at 2156.

Warren D. Smith v. P . Vavoulis

373 F. App'x 965 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2010

being granted, the case and the qualified immunity issue along with it will proceed to trial.” … a constitutional right; and, if so, (2) whether the right violated was clearly established.

Joseph Harper v. Jeremiah Davis

571 F. App'x 906 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2014

Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012) (“[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported … The Alleged Violation Was Not Clearly Established in Case Law Harper took neither avenue to show that Davis and Gourley’s conduct was clearly unlawful.

Norman L. Clark v. State of Georgia Pardons and Paroles Board

915 F.2d 636 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 24, 1990

But nothing in the record before us establishes “frivolousness.” The facts asserted to support the claim are not fantastic. … But, the record in this case establishes no explanation for concluding that Clark’s case is frivolous.

Spivey v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc.

196 F.3d 1309 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 30, 1999

Appellant must meet four requirements in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination: (1) she is a member of a group protected by Title VII; (2) she was qualified for the position or benefit sought; (3) she … The Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiff, a pregnant employee, had not established a prima facie case of discrimination because she failed to demonstrate that she was qualified for

Jermaine Williston Atterbury v. City of Miami

322 F. App'x 724 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2009

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are not liable for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Once an official establishes that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to overcome the privilege of qualified immunity.

James Fred Barfield v. Kevin Rambosk

641 F. App'x 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 29, 2015

To decide whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity we engage in a two- part inquiry. … To determine whether a right was clearly established, we look to binding decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Florida Supreme Court. See McClish v.

Margery A. Morstein v. National Insurance Services, Inc. Pan American Life Insurance Company the Shaw Agency Scott Hankins

93 F.3d 715 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 19, 1996

The district court concluded that Morstein’s claims “clearly relate to the employee benefit plan established by Graphic Promotions; therefore, those claims are preempted by ERISA.” R2-29-3. … or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established or is maintained for the purpose of providing for its participants

Mills v. Singletary

161 F.3d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 1, 1998

Dugger is thus not clearly erroneous.13 C. … "[W]e defer to the district court's findings of fact unless we determine that the findings are clearly erroneous.

Jeffrey Bernard Beeman v. United States

871 F.3d 1215 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 22, 2017

The Merits To prove a Johnson claim, a movant must establish that his sentence enhancement “turn[ed] on the validity of the residual clause.” … “Where, as here, the evidence does not clearly explain what happened ... the party with the burden loses.” Romine v. Head, 253 F.3d 1349 , 1357 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v.

Jove Engineering, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service

92 F.3d 1539 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 29, 1996

§ 106 provides an unequivocal, express waiver of sovereign immunity for specifically enumerated bankruptcy provisions, stating, "Notwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity is … Among these powers, "it is firmly established that the power to punish for contempts is inherent in all courts." Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44, 111 S.Ct. at 2132 (internal quotations omitted); Shillitani v.