Case law

Rogers v. Miller

57 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 1995

Qualified, or "good faith" immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages arising out of the performance of their discretionary functions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … We hold only that the defendants are immune from damages because no caselaw existing at the time of these events clearly established that such conduct, under the circumstances, constituted "adverse employment action" prohibited

Delma Jackson v. Warden Carl Humphrey

776 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 2015

We properly have “jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity as the issue involves the determination of whether the official[s’] conduct violated clearly established law.” … clearly established law.”

Clarissa Gilmore v. Georgia Department of Corrections

111 F.4th 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2024

But as we discuss, our prec- edent rejects that path to defeating qualified immunity. … qualified-immunity purposes.

Nicole Maddox v. Babette Stephens

727 F.3d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 2013

A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: “(1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle within … Stephens is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that Stephens’ actions were so conscience shocking as to violate Maddox’s liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of

Badia v. City of Miami

133 F.3d 1443 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 1998

In order to defeat Lee's claimed entitlement to qualified immunity, Badia was required to proffer evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to her, demonstrates that Lee violated clearly established statutory or … Lee's alleged actions did not violate clearly established First Amendment rights, and qualified immunity protects Lee from Badia's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment claim.

Koch v. Rugg

221 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

clearly established law.” … violate clearly established law.”).

Moniz v. City of Fort Lauderdale

145 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1998

immunity unless Moniz can demonstrate that appellants should have known, based on clearly established law as of 1993 and 1995, the years in which the challenged promotions were awarded, that their use of race as a factor … We conclude, therefore, that, having violated no clearly established law, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham

963 F.2d 1481 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 1992

Rule 12(b)(6) and Qualified Immunity At this early stage in the proceedings, the Rule 12(b)(6) defense and the qualified-immunity defense become intertwined. … Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). 5 Under the qualified-immunity defense, defendants are immune from liability and even from trial if plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Mary Ann Collier v. Fred O. Dickinson, III

477 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

Qualified immunity offers protection for government officials, acting within their discretionary authority,1 who are sued in their individual capacities as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The words of the DPPA alone are “specific enough to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances and to overcome qualified immunity.” Vinyard v.

Santamorena v. Georgia Military College

147 F.3d 1337 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 1998

But still Plaintiff argues that the preexisting law was somehow so clearly established that Defendants should not be protected by qualified immunity. … established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Jordan v. Doe

38 F.3d 1559 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

Fitzgerald and its Progeny The Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity in Harlow v. … clearly established constitutional law”’ under Harlow.

H.A.L. Ex Rel. Lewis v. Foltz

551 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2008

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.6 AFFIRMED. 6 We do not hint about the availability of qualified immunity on summary

Hamilton Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Cannon

80 F.3d 1525 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 1996

However, even if Ross were indistinguishable, Seventh Circuit decisions can not clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity in this circuit. E.g., D'Aguanno v. … McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1497-98 & n. 32 (11th Cir.1991) (law can be "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes by decisions of U.S.

James Eric McDonough v. Carlos Garcia

90 F.4th 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2024

“Qualified immunity offers protection for government officials, acting within their discretionary authority, who are sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct does not violate clearly … and that the right at issue was clearly established when the violation occurred.

Donato Dalrymple v. Janet Reno

334 F.3d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 19, 2003

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates 7 “clearly established … A district court should therefore grant the defense of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Derrick Bailey v. Major Tommy Wheeler

843 F.3d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 28, 2016

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged action. City & Cty. … So the burden shifts to Bailey, as the plaintiff, to establish that qualified immunity does not apply. Id.

Keating v. City of Miami

598 F.3d 753 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 2, 2010

established, even though the district court granted them qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss. … If the violations were clearly established, then Timoney, Fernandez, Cannon, and Burden are not entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Foy v. Holston

94 F.3d 1528 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1996

whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.") … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal rights allegedly violated were clearly established. See Barts v.

Lassiter v. Alabama A & M University

28 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1994

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights" allegedly violated were "clearly established.” Barts, 865 F.2d at 1190 (citing Mitchell v.

Hudgins v. City of Ashburn

890 F.2d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 13, 1989

Harlow and Rich instruct that a summary-judgment motion based on qualified immunity also may require determining the applicable law before ascertaining whether or not that law is clearly established. … Rich recognizes two instances where qualified immunity is accorded to government officials: 1) when the law that they allegedly violated is not clearly established, see, e.g., Clark, 840 F.2d at 882-84 ; Muhammad v.