Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersca11

9,466 results

1.46s

  • John E. Green v. J. Kenneth Brantley, Edgar v. Lewis, Craig R. Smith, Garland P. Castleberry

    941 F.2d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 1991

    The doctrine of qualified immunity affords immunity from suit to government officials performing discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … that make out violations of clearly established law.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Randall v. Scott

    610 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2010

    Alternatively, even if the allegations in the complaint were sufficent to establish a First Amendment violation, the court concluded that Scott was entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly established … claim for violation of his First Amendment rights; and (3) Scott is entitled to qualified immunity because Randall’s constitutional rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of Scott’s alleged misconduct

    Declined to follow by Cook v. Popplewell, 2011 Ky. LEXIS 174 (2011)Cited 1,091 timesPublished
  • Ledea v. Metro-Dade County Police Department

    681 F. App'x 728 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2017

    To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. at 1137 . … The officers do not assert the district court erred in its resolution of the second prong of qualified immunity—that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Joshua Paul English v. Officer Jonathan Fowler

    75 F.4th 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2023

    They argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the claim of ex- cessive force. … that violated clearly established law.”

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Dimmitt v. City of Clearwater

    985 F.2d 1565 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 23, 1993

    Ordinarily a litigant offering a facial constitutional challenge to a statute must establish that “no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. … To summarize, by exempting only government flags from the permit requirement, section 134.008(18) clearly restricts speech based upon its content.

    Cited 68 timesPublished
  • Ansley v. Heinrich

    925 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1991

    The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public officials, acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law, from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … In Harlow , the Supreme Court stated that the immunity defense should fail if the law governing the official’s actions has been clearly established.

    Cited 84 timesPublished
  • Sharon Powell v. Jennifer Snook

    25 F.4th 912 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2022

    The qualified immunity issue before us is the familiar one of whether clearly established law put Snook on notice that firing the shots he did violated David Powell’s constitutional rights. … For qualified immun- ity to apply, an officer “must first establish that he acted within his discretionary authority.” Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1280 (11th Cir. 2013).

    Abrogated on other grounds by Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. 73 (2025)Cited 72 timesPublished
  • Denise Hughes v. Monique Locure

    Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2026

    Though we typically re- view only final decisions, “the question of whether a complaint states a violation of clearly established law sufficient to overcome a qualified immunity defense does present … The district court also applied the third method in ruling that Moss’s rights were sufficiently clearly established to overcome Locure’s qualified immunity defense.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Priester v. City of Riviera Beach

    208 F.3d 919 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 2000

    Judgment as a Matter of Law—Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

    Cited 502 timesPublished
  • Rowe v. Schreiber

    139 F.3d 1381 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

    "For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable … In this case, for qualified immunity not to apply, the right which must be clearly established is some right to have the resources of the public defender's office administratively allocated in a specific manner or the right

    Cited 119 timesPublished
  • Pablo F. Maldonado v. Unnamed

    648 F. App'x 939 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 26, 2016

    Finally, he contended the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, because he had shown they violated his clearly established constitutional rights. … He further asserts the judge erroneously applied a heightened standard of proof concerning the clearly established law prong of the qualified-immunity defense.

    Cited 21 timesUnpublished
  • 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.

    Vacated on other grounds by Willingham v. Loughnan, 537 U.S. 801 (2002)Cited 83 timesPublished
  • Hudson v. Hall

    231 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2000

    violated clearly established law." … clearly established law.

    Cited 70 timesPublished
  • James Ryan Singletary v. Juan Vargas

    804 F.3d 1174 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2015

    Qualified Immunity Resolution of Defendant’s appeal requires us to decide whether Plaintiff proved that Defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity for his actions.9 Qualified immunity balances two important … Clearly Established Law Even assuming a constitutional violation, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless Plaintiff can show that his Fourth Amendment rights were “clearly established” at the time of

    Cited 88 timesPublished
  • Cottone v. Jenne

    326 F.3d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2003

    [u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Id. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine the applicability of qualified immunity.

    Abrogated in part, on other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (2010)Cited 382 timesPublished
  • John Eugene Youmans v. M. J. Oschner

    626 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2010

    We “review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.” … was not already clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

    Cited 159 timesPublished
  • Dr. Lana Foster v. Shannon King

    Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2026

    But the second question, whether the law is clearly established, presents a set of doctrinal challenges unique to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we address only step two of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hartley Ex Rel. Hartley v. Parnell

    193 F.3d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 1999

    Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … (The second inquiry is whether the violated federal right, if any, was clearly established.)

    Cited 429 timesPublished
  • Bedinghaus v. Modern Graphic Arts

    15 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1994

    Clearly, “the company” refers to the Times and its affiliates, not to some entity that happens to purchase the assets of one of the affiliates. We see no ambiguity in the crucial terms. … As the First Circuit said in Bellino: Federal courts have established no hard and fast rule that an individual must suffer a period of unemployment to qualify for severance benefits under ERISA.

    Cited 27 timesPublished
  • Barbara Donald v. Tyler Norris

    131 F.4th 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

    We need address only whether Burrell’s right to some other treatment was clearly established because that answer resolves the qualified-immunity question. … Indeed, the formulation from the Hill dicta would eliminate the “clearly established” part of the qualified-immunity analysis as we know it.

    Cited 16 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.