Case law

Melissa Antoinette Betterson v. Town of Cutler Bay

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity We review de novo dismissal for failure to state a claim based on qualified immunity. Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir. 2003). … Once the affirmative defense of qualified immunity has been advanced, the defendant is entitled to dismissal unless the plaintiff alleged a violation of clearly established law. Id.

Martinezz Bowman v. David Harvey

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2025

, so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Mullenix v. … (2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.”

Mahone Ex Rel. Mahone v. Ben Hill County School System

377 F. App'x 913 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields public officials from suits against them in their individual capacities for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless the tortious act violates a clearly established … Once this is done, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. (citation omitted).

McClain v. Hall

552 F.3d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 2008

PRYOR, Circuit Judge: The issue in this appeal is whether the Superior Court of Butts County, Georgia, unreasonably applied clearly established federal law when it ruled that Mark Howard McClain failed to prove ineffective … Unless the decision of the Georgia court “ ‘(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an

Hill v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

841 F.2d 1533 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 1988

qualified blacks. … This evidence was not in and of itself sufficient to infer that MARTA was engaging in discriminatory practices throughout its entire operation and/or with respect to black applicants who clearly were not qualified. 9 III.

Rush PETTWAY, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee

681 F.2d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 15, 1982

his employment with the company that qualified him or would have qualified him for the denied positions.” … Here, the trial court’s statement that each individual employee must “establish” the jobs that he had lost and that he was qualified for has placed a different and much heavier burden on the employee than this Court has stated

39 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1092, 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,825 Charles R. Barber v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, District Lodge No. 57

778 F.2d 750 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 23, 1985

Full-fledged boilermakers are referred at the rate established in the Articles, which typically is called the 100% rate. Those who are not fully qualified boilermakers are paid at lesser rates. … CONCLUSION 44 The district court's ultimate finding of intentional discrimination is clearly erroneous because the evidence at trial failed to establish disparate treatment.

Patricia Lynn Fry v. Hillsborough Co. School Board

190 F. App'x 810 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 20, 2006

individual capacities unless they have “violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “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 concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

Sandy Cuddeback v. FL Board of Education

381 F.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2004

Cuddeback established a prima facie case of gender discrimination by showing that (1) she is a female; (2) she was qualified for the job; (3) the University terminated her employment; and (4) someone outside the protected … However, the grant of summary judgment in the University’s favor was otherwise proper because the record clearly demonstrates that Cuddeback failed to establish pretext.5 The University met its burden of showing

FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES, INC. v. Fulton County, Ga.

596 F.3d 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 16, 2010

The defendant commissioners moved for summary judgment, asserting absolute and qualified immunity. … The court determined that the commissioners were entitled to absolute legislative immunity (without reaching the question of qualified immunity) and granted the motion.

52 Fair empl.prac.cas. 71, 52 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,662 Increase Minority Participation by Affirmative Change Today of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Impact), on Behalf of Itself and Its Members, Diann Walker, Louvenia Jones, Pearlie Williams, Gracie Holton, Rosa Henderson, Delores Colston, Charles Stewart, Barbara King, Dorothy Roberts, Jacqueline Ross, Linda Issac, Intervenors-Appellants, and Clifford Simmons, Marguerite Stewart v. George Firestone, as Secretary of the State of Florida, State of Florida, Increase Minority Participation by Affirmative Change Today of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Impact), on Behalf of Itself and Its Members, Diann Walker, Louvenia Jones, Pearlie Williams, Gracie Holton, Rosa Henderson, Delores Colston, Charles Stewart, Barbara King, and Dorothy Roberts, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Clifford Simmons and Marguerite Stewart, Jacqueline Ross and Linda Issac, Intervenors-Appellants v. George Firestone, as Secretary of State of the State of Florida, and State of Florida

893 F.2d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 1990

His testimony, if it had been accepted by the trial court, was clearly sufficient to establish a statistical disparity between the employment actions taken in favor of black applicants as against those taken in favor of whites … Plaintiffs "are not limited to presenting evidence of a certain type" to establish pretext. Id.

United States v. Gregory Zaccardi

924 F.2d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1991

Appellant contends that because he was characterized as one of the least culpable conspirators by the PSI, he is clearly “less culpable than most other participants” and, therefore, qualifies for a two point reduction in … In either case, the fact that a particular defendant may be least culpable among those who are actually named as defendants does not establish that he performed a minor role in the conspiracy.

Jose Daniel Ruiz Coronado v. Bankatlantic Bancorp

222 F.3d 1315 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2000

’s immunity. … This immunity is very broad.2 As we recently reiterated in Lopez, “the adjective ‘any’ is not ambiguous; it has a well-established meaning” and, “[r]ead naturally, . . . has an expansive meaning, that is, one or some indiscriminately

Manuel Balbin v. Alexis Johnson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2025

Third, it was clearly established in No- vember 2020 that Balbin’s right was violated when Officer Johnson searched his cell and threw away his things. … An official raising qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss has the initial burden of establishing that she was acting within the scope of her discretionary authority. Est. of Cummings v.

Larry Bolin v. Richard W. Story

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 6, 2000

Further, the complaint alleges that "[i]t has been clearly established that appellate court judges in the Eleventh Circuit routinely do not read pro se briefs, but allow staff attorneys to make 'summaries' for them instead … Abella merely contains a general comment on the coextensiveness of remedies and immunities under § 1983 and Bivens, Charles discusses witness immunity, and Barker involves qualified immunity.

William Baker v. Ryan P. Moskau

335 F. App'x 864 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

“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 … 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.

Donald Johnson v. United States Congress

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2025

sovereign immunity ‘cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed,’” id. … It is a corollary to immunity from suit on the part of the United States . . . that this immunity cannot be waived by officials.

Norrell Sutherland v. Brian Allison

416 F. App'x 45 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2011

We then answer the legal question of whether the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity under that version of the facts. … Second, the court analyzes whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id.

Thomas J. Mahone v. Walter S. Ray, Garfield Hammond, Jr.

326 F.3d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2003

They also asserted that the Board members in their official capacities enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity against suits for monetary damages, and that they were entitled to qualified immunity and quasi-judicial immunity … Ed. 2d 359 (1990) (“It is well established that a federal court may consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending. . . .

George Pino v. William Neilds

598 F. App'x 744 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2015

Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Supreme Court has adopted a two-part test for evaluating a claim of qualified immunity.