Case law

First Alabama Bank, N.A. v. United States

981 F.2d 1226 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

After careful consideration of all the circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that these findings of fact are clearly erroneous. … The IRS operating procedures contained in the IRM do not delineate substantive rights of individuals but instead simply establish intra-agency operating procedures.

Charles Allison Davis v. Robert Markley

601 F. App'x 799 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability in their individual capacities unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … Because the complaint did not allege, much less suggest, that the officers lacked arguable probable cause to arrest him, qualified immunity bars his claims against them as well.

Ford v. United States

989 F.2d 450 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 23, 1993

Section 46 establishes the amount of the credit. … The statutory language does not establish a rule that if the building will eventually qualify as being “substantially rehabilitated,” it may be treated as such for each year during the rehabilitation period, no matter how

Warden Stephen Benton v. Brian Hopkins

190 F. App'x 856 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

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 … the defendant violated was “clearly established” at the time he did it.

United States v. Miguel Orduno-Mireles

405 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2005

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) because the crimes do not qualify as “crimes of violence.” … Your criminal history speaks more clearly on actions than mere words.”

Paul Sosa v. Peter Hames

218 F. App'x 976 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 2007

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless 3 their conduct violates ‘clearly established … If the complaint alleges the violation of a constitutional right, the court must determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id.

Island Silver & Spice, Inc. v. Islamorada

542 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2008

district court, seeking damages, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus on the grounds that the ordinance’s formula retail provisions violated its rights to Due Process, Commercial Speech, Equal Protection, Privileges and Immunities … (“Because the ordinance clearly fails the first two prongs of the [elevated scrutiny] test, the Court does not need to reach the merits of the third prong of the test.

Shirley F. Santillana v. Florida State Court System

450 F. App'x 840 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 4, 2012

However, Santillana’s initial brief repeatedly attacks the district court’s reasoning underlying its finding of qualified immunity, namely that Defendants had not violated the clearly established right to be free from employment … In the context of public employment, we have held that the constitutional right to be free from employment discrimination on the basis of race is clearly established. Rioux v.

Kevin Dale v. Stephens County, Georgia School

238 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2007

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity is a two- step inquiry: (1) whether the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established. … Since we find there was no constitutional violation on the part of these defendants under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, we do not reach the question of whether the violation was clearly established

Eddie L. Tucker v. Talladega City Schools

171 F. App'x 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2006

A public defendant acting within his discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity unless that official violated a right of the plaintiff’s that was clearly established. Cook v. … The qualified immunity inquiry also requires us to determine if the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Karen J. Kilpatrick vs USA, Craig W. Roegner, City of Pensacola, Amanda Griffett, Peter Faulk

432 F. App'x 937 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 16, 2011

PER CURIAM: Karen Kilpatrick appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. … genuine issue of material fact as to whether a constitutional violation occurred, and even assuming that Kilpatrick’s First Amendment rights were violated, the officers’ actions were not contrary to clearly established

United States v. Frank M. Howard

742 F.3d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 2014

In the alternative, he argues that the documents the government presented at his sentence hearing did not establish that his third-degree burglary convictions qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA even if the modified … The court then concluded that the documents the government had submitted, while not ideal, were enough to establish that Howard’s two convictions involved the elements for generic burglary under the ACCA and thus qualified

Carolyn WELBORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

810 F.2d 1026 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 1987

In a case alleging a failure to hire, such as is alleged here, the charging party may establish a prima facie case by showing 1) that she or he is a member of a protected class; 2) that she or he applied and was qualified … In reviewing findings of fact by a district court we utilize the clearly erroneous standard, United States v.

Luis W. Lebron v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families

772 F.3d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 3, 2014

In the application, an individual must disclose certain information, including medical history, immunization records, living arrangements, social security numbers, family income, employment history, and job-search activities … Mack excluded, the State did not put forward a qualified expert to present them. See Fed. R.

Hillsborough County v. Star Insurance Company

847 F.3d 1296 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 2017

cap established by § 768.28(5) and the $350,000 SIRL. … First, the words “insurance coverage” in § 768.28(5) indicate that one must look to the terms of the policy to determine what is covered, and here the policy clearly requires that Star consent to any settlement that would

Marthe Bien-Aime v. Officer Christy Vice

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 2015

Furthermore, Bien-Aime is unable to meet her burden of proving that the officers violated clearly established law. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable [officer] would

Willie Aaron Green v. Jonathan Surine

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 11, 2026

violation; and (2) that this violation was ‘clearly established’ in law at the time of the alleged misconduct.” … Their dispute turns on whether the defendants’ actions violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

United States v. Cano

289 F.3d 1354 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2002

And other evidence in the case well-established the amounts of cocaine being trafficked and the money the trafficking was bringing in. … Neither the presentence investigation report (“PSI”) nor the record of the sentencing hearing established that Cano possessed any quantity of marijuana during that time period.

Sandra Gray v. The City of Roswell

486 F. App'x 798 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2012

clearly established constitutional or federal law of which a reasonable person would have known. … whether a reasonable public official could have believed that the questioned conduct was lawful under clearly established law.”

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Trailer Train Company

690 F.2d 1343 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 8, 1982

by lease and others by purchase: only the latter cars qualified for the ITC. … When, as here, the district court reaches its determinations solely on the basis of depositions, affidavits, and documents, the burden of establishing clear error is not so heavy, and the clearly erroneous rule is somewhat