Case law

Christopher Gloston v. Jack Vance

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2020

We conclude that the district court did not properly analyze Vance’s claim of qualified immunity. … It then should have considered whether Vance violated Gloston’s constitutional rights, and whether those rights were clearly established.

William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Norman's Country Market, Inc., David A. Norman and India A. Norman

835 F.2d 823 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 15, 1988

Therefore, the district court’s determination that all eight employees 3 did not qualify under the executive exemption was not clearly erroneous. … There is sufficient evidence to establish that the wage agreement did exist between the Normans and Mr.

Majorie Depalis-Lachaud v. Kenneth E. Noel

505 F. App'x 864 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 2013

that “was clearly established” by existing law at the time. … establish the law for qualified- immunity purposes.

Sandoval v. Hagan

197 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 30, 1999

The Department did not object, and on October 17, 1997, the district court certified the class, naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of “all legal residents of the State of Alabama who are otherwise qualified … This doctrinal exception to state sovereign immunity is well- established. See Idaho v.

Katie Lowery v. Honeywell International, Inc.

483 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2007

The plaintiffs assert that this action does not qualify for treatment as a mass action. … Under either paragraph, the documents received by the defendant must contain an unambiguous statement that clearly establishes federal jurisdiction. See Bosky v.

Bannum v. City of Ft. Lauderdale

157 F.3d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1998

In January 1985, the Bureau of Prisons awarded Bannum a contract to establish a community treatment center (CTC) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. … The defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that they were entitled to absolute, qualified and municipal immunity.

United States v. Leon J. Wood, III

780 F.2d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 21, 1986

In April, 1984, government agents informed Wood that he had breached the immunity agreement. … Second, it maintains that the district court’s finding that Wood substantially complied with the contract is clearly erroneous.

Florida State Conference of the National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Browning

522 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 3, 2008

When a state adopts an electoral system, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees qualified voters a substantive right to participate equally with other qualified voters in the electoral process. … Having granted its citizens the right to vote, Florida must not only allow qualified voters to participate equally in elections, it must also ensure that qualified voters are given an equal opportunity to participate in elections

Michelle Keene v. Chris Pine

477 F. App'x 575 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 2012

We next consider the district court’s additional, alternative conclusion that Sheriff Prine was entitled to qualified immunity because he “had lawful reasons for terminating all the Plaintiffs and that he was at least in … As a result, we conclude that granting summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on this claim is not appropriate.

Mary P. Dahl-Eimers v. Mutual of Omaha Life Insurance Company

986 F.2d 1379 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1993

The insurance policy does not clearly specify who will determine whether a treatment is considered experimental or how that determination will be made. … HDC-ABMT is an established treatment for cancers characterized by diffuse tumors, such as leukemia or lymphoma. Breast cancer, however, is characterized by solid tumors.

United States v. Jonathan Blanco

102 F.4th 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 2024

LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 8.11(e) (4th ed. 2023) (“For informal immunity, unlike statutory use/derivative-use immunity, issues relating to the scope of the immunity cannot be answered by … Its findings were thorough and clearly set out at the sentencing hearing. See id. at 69–74. As for the second, though we doubt that a defendant like Mr.

Warren Darlow v. Frank Babineck

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 27, 2022

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a USCA11 Case: 21-13020 … Accordingly, to determine whether qualified immunity applies, a court should determine whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff established a violation of a constitutional right, and, if so, whether that right was clearly

Cantrell Hill v. Bernard Hill

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 2025

Hill, however, fails to challenge the qualified immunity of the three defendants— the basis on which summary judgment was granted in their favor. … A right can be clearly established in any one of three ways: (1) by case law with indistinguish- able facts, (2) by a broad statement of the principle in the Constitution, statute, or case law, or

Jerry Frank Townsend v. City of Miami

212 F. App'x 831 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 21, 2006

Boone and Bruce Roberson, former police officers for the City of Miami, Florida, appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … . § 1983 malicious prosecution and Fifth Amendment claims filed by Jerry Frank Townsend were not clearly established law in 1979 when Townsend alleges that he was coerced into confessing, or in 1982 when he entered a guilty

Estela Mabel Argueta Romero v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

20 F.4th 1374 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 2021

Because § 1101(g) contains no such qualifier, on the govern- ment’s theory, its conditions must be successive. … Because § 1101(g) contains no such qualifiers, on Romero’s view, its conditions must be independent.

Caroline P. Payne v. United States

730 F.2d 1434 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 30, 1984

. § 2680 (a), immunized the Government from liability. We affirm. … It includes determinations made by executives or administrators in establishing plans, specifications or schedules or operations”. 346 U.S. at 35-6 , 73 S.Ct. at 967-68 .

United States v. Bent

707 F.2d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 20, 1983

We cannot reverse the district court’s decision to admit the evidence unless that decision was clearly erroneous. United States v. … Quinones argues this was clearly beyond the scope of cross-examination, but we disagree.

Frank Dwight Mack v. Ti'Quita Miles

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 2019

Qualified immunity provides “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Once a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, and demonstrates that her actions were discretionary in nature, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the defendant violated his clearly-established constitutional

Michael Edward Pair v. City of Parker FL Police

383 F. App'x 835 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 16, 2010

The defendants filed special reports arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Nail v. Community Action Agency of Calhoun County

805 F.2d 1500 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 16, 1986

However, extensive regulation by the state is not enough to establish state action. … However, under the standard set forth in Rendell-Baker, this type of proof is clearly insufficient to establish that the decision to dismiss her was made under color of state law.