Case law

Hardy v. Birmingham Board of Education

954 F.2d 1546 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 5, 1992

However, the statute contains no such qualifying language for the party-appointed panel members. … But no decision of this Court or seemingly of any Alabama Court clearly answers the question of whether the employer and employee representatives on the arbitration panel herein should be neutral.

Hardie Vertrain Sims, Jr. v. Mashburn, Officer, Coi, John B. Sanderson, Sgt., Gene Kelly, Officer, Coi Malone, Officer, Coi L. Burton, Warden

25 F.3d 980 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 1994

Sanderson also argues that the district court erred in rejecting his qualified immunity defense, and that the $500 damage award is excessive. … IV.Standard of Review We review the district court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard, see Anderson v.

George Hoey Morris v. Greg Jackson

167 F. App'x 750 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2006

immunity protects public officers acting in their official capacities from liability for injury arising from discretionary acts so long as the acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … established rights.”

Christian Powell v. Bobby Haddock

366 F. App'x 29 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 12, 2010

It is clearly established that an arrest made without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. Thornton v. City of Macon, 132 F.3d 1395, 1399 (11th Cir. 1998). … For these reasons, the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is AFFIRMED. 4

Emiliano Monzon v. United States

253 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2001

It is well-settled that “[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” Mid-South Holding Co. v. United States, 225 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. … New Orleans Levee Bd., 737 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1984) (concluding that actions taken by area manager of NWS “were clearly discretionary functions” and holding that plaintiff’s claim that NWS negligently failed to predict

Earl Lee Brown v. W.B. Flury

848 F.2d 158 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 1988

Appellees contend that they did not violate Brown’s constitutional rights and alternatively., that they are entitled to qualified good-faith immunity. … For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record during cross-examination but

Jeffrey S. v. State Board Of Education Of Georgia

896 F.2d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 1990

Additionally, Jeffrey has negative surface antigens which render him a less infectious carrier. 9 The magistrate found that numerous protective measures could be taken to decrease Jeffrey's transmission risk even further, such as immunizing … to apply, the above language reflects doubt on the judge's conclusion that the report was not clearly erroneous.

Leggett v. Badger

759 F.2d 1556 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1985

remaining issue of attorney's fees the district court held, after an evidentiary hearing, there was no causal connection between this action and the new procedures regarding the use of force by corrections officers, which, if established … The district court's finding that there was no causal connection between Leggett's action and the new "use of force" training program was not clearly erroneous. See Fields v.

Gonzales v. Garner Food Services, Inc.

89 F.3d 1523 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 2, 1996

In addition to its broad purpose, the statute is clearly a remedial one. The law is well established that remedial statutes are to be construed liberally so as to promote the remedial purposes of the statute. … When Congress enacted the ADA in 1990, it was clearly established Title VII case law that the term "employee" includes former employees. Congress is deemed to be familiar with such case law.

United States v. Willie Frank Wyckoff

918 F.2d 925 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 7, 1990

. § 922 (g)(1). 1 Appellant’s qualifying sentence of four years’ imprisonment arose from a 1984 conviction for receiving stolen property. … This section, insofar as it considers a prior sentence, is concerned only with the fact that a court imposed a qualifying sentence.

James M. Daniels v. John Bango

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 20, 2012

Here, Bango argues that his actions, which are undisputed, did not violate clearly established constitutional rights; therefore, we find the appeal of the district court’s qualified immunity determination proper. … Qualified Immunity 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 of which a

Arnold v. Board Of Education Of Escambia County

880 F.2d 305 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 10, 1989

Although the appellees have suggested on appeal that the defendants are entitled to immunity as a matter of law, immunity was not a basis for the trial court's ruling and we find it premature at this time to address. … For cases discussing immunity see generally Parker v. Williams, 862 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir.1989) (individual immunity); Smith v.

Mcguire Oil Company v. Mapco, Inc.

958 F.2d 1552 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 24, 1992

Mapco Petroleum, a wholly owned subsidiary of Mapco, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, qualified to do business in Alabama, that is engaged in the retail sale of unbranded petroleum products in Alabama. … Indeed, Ala.Code § 8-22-17 is very similar to Clayton Act section 4, which establishes the federal antitrust injury requirement.

Eugene E. Mack v. Victor Mazzarella

554 F. App'x 800 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2014

When asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, an official first must establish he was engaged in a discretionary function when he performed the acts at issue in the plaintiff’s complaint. … The plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established 5  Case: 13-11040 Date Filed: 01/28/2014

Tony Speight v. Benjamin W. Griggs

620 F. App'x 806 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2015

Because it found no violation of D.M.C.’s constitutional rights, the district court did not reach the second prong of the qualified immunity test, which asks whether the rights violated were clearly established. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if he was “acting within his discretionary authority” and did not violate a clearly established right with his alleged misconduct.

Foster v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County

872 F.2d 1563 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 1989

The district court found that petitioners either were not qualified for promotion or would not have been promoted in a nondiscriminatory system. These findings will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. … That finding is not clearly erroneous. Only one person was promoted without experience, but that promotion occurred in 1982, and the person was exceptionally qualified.

Popham v. City of Talladega

908 F.2d 1561 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 20, 1990

or custom to support an official capacity claim against the City and the individual city employees, and second, that the defendants did not show “deliberate indifference” to the needs of the prisoner, and are entitled to qualified … immunity in their individual capacities.

Andrew Bamidele Bull v. Immigration and Naturalization Service an Agency of the United States Department of Justice

790 F.2d 869 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 3, 1986

In order to qualify for adjustment of status, an alien must establish that: (1) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed; and (2) he is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and … Thus, it is clear from the express language of Operations Instruction 242.1(a)(25) that its underlying policy of allowing a prima facie qualified beneficiary of a visa petition to remain in the United States pending final

Dempsey ex rel. Dempsey v. United States

32 F.3d 1490 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 8, 1994

Therefore, the setoff was clearly erroneous. … The document then states: “CHAMPUS benefits for private duty (special) nursing care are limited to that care which qualifies as medically necessary skilled nursing care.”

Douglas Earl Nalls v. Bureau of Prisons USA

359 F. App'x 99 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 29, 2009

But qualified immunity protects the case manager and counselor from suit. … established constitutional right; and qualified immunity bars Nalls’s suit against these two defendants.2 AFFIRMED.3 2 Because we decide Nalls’s case on immunity grounds, we decline to discuss