Case law

John Kelly, Jr. v. Steven Curtis Julie M. Gibson J.R. Moore Chatham County, Ga

21 F.3d 1544 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 1994

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional right[ … By distinguishing these two out-of-circuit decisions that Kelly has cited, we do not mean to imply that the law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes by non-binding precedent. See Hansen v.

Sherika Franklin v. Jason Popovich

111 F.4th 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2024

Thus, the court concluded, Franklin had not shown that Popovich violated clearly established law, and Popovich was entitled to qualified immunity. Franklin appealed. … concluded” that “the circumstances justified the use of deadly violation as well as the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 1009–13.

Douglas Stalley v. Lake CI Warden

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 30, 2024

Because this is a qualified immunity case, the defendants don’t have to show that the law is clearly established that they did not act with deliberate indifference. … For all of these reasons, Brown is clearly distinguishable and cannot be used to establish that there was deliberate indifference here, much less that it was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes

Long v. Slaton

508 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2007

, violated no clearly established *584 right. … Montoute is a qualified immunity decision.

Marcus Underwood v. City of Bessemer

11 F.4th 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 2021

While we find that Underwood’s facts make out a constitutional violation, the Officers are still entitled to qualified immunity if the violation was not clearly established. Morton, 707 F.3d at 1282. B. … Was the Right Clearly Established?

Stone v. Peacock

968 F.2d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1992

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials acting within the scope of their discretionary authority and under clearly established law from insubstantial lawsuits. Butz v. … The jury was instructed to determine if defendants violated clearly established law.

Gene Flinn v. Elaine Gordon, Dexter Lehtinen

775 F.2d 1551 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1985

Once this is established, the official is immune from liability unless the plaintiff can “prove that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.” Id. … Since Flinn cannot show the loss of any federal right, much less the loss of a “clearly established” right, he has failed to overcome Gordon’s qualified immunity.

Doctor Awanna Leslie v. Hancock County Board of Education

720 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

had was not clearly established. … “[T]o obtain qualified immunity, an official must first establish that he acted within his discretionary authority.”

Swint v. City Of Wadley

51 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 1995

by ... clearly-established law." … Because such a due process right was not clearly established at the time of the raids in this case, Sheriff Morgan, Chief Morgan and Officer Dendinger are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.

Nolen v. Jackson

102 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right.... … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (holding threshold question in a qualified immunity claim is whether a violation of a clearly established constitutional right has occurred);

Darlene M. Kesinger v. Thomas Herrington

381 F.3d 1243 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2004

Excessive Force & Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public actors from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … He did not violate the Constitution or any clearly established law. He is entitled to qualified immunity. V.

Mary Jo. Bradley v. Officer Casey Benton

10 F.4th 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2021

“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.” Bailey v. … In other words, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless he (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time. See Helm, 989 F.3d at 1272.

Galvez v. Bruce

552 F.3d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 2008

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are performing discretionary functions and their actions “‘[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Supreme Court has instructed that courts should not proceed to the third step of the qualified immunity inquiry – whether the law at the time of the events clearly established such a violation – unless they find that

Nicholas C. Wade v. Solomon Daniels

36 F.4th 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2022

medical needs—which, as addressed in the following sections, he cannot—qualified immunity applies because Wade failed to show that the defendants violated clearly established law. … Because there is no clearly established law that placed Investigators Daniels, Jones, and Wilson on notice that their actions violated Wade’s constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity on Wade’s medical

Whittier v. Kobayashi

581 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … “To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test; he must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Gonzalez v. Reno, Meissner, Holder, Mills, INS Agent

325 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 2003

The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … It is therefore appropriate for a district court to grant the defense of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Joe Carollo v. Luigi Boria

833 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2016

the alleged violation “clearly established” those rights (the “immunity” prong). … “So conceived, the object of the ‘clearly established’ immunity standard is not different from that of ‘fair warning,’” United States v.

Joseph C. Booker, D/B/A Booker Trucking Company v. City of Atlanta, a Municipal Corporation, F. M. Couvillion

776 F.2d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1986

Even if unintended, such an effect could constitute police “intervention and aid” sufficient to establish state action. See Menchaca, 613 F.2d at 513 ; Jeffries v. … If Couvillion’s actions were within the scope of his official duties, he is immune from suit if he acted under a good faith belief that the actions were legal. See Clark v.

Fortner v. Thomas

983 F.2d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1993

clearly established law." … It is well established that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability as long as the officials could reasonably believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established

Gold v. City of Miami

121 F.3d 1442 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1997

Discussion Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and damage liability where "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … At the time, no cases clearly established that those actions did not constitute legally proscribed disorderly conduct.