Case law

Brandon Coffman v. Harry Dallas Battle

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 11, 2019

that Battle is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Page: 12 of 18 Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Jimmy Grady Trotter v. Jeffrey Shull

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2017

We may consider the two prongs of the qualified-immunity analysis—the merits of the underlying constitutional issue and the question whether the alleged right was “clearly established”— in any order. Pearson v. … App’x 229 (11th Cir. 2009)—which as an unpublished opinion is incapable of clearly establishing law for qualified-immunity purposes, in any event—the officer repeatedly punched and beat the plaintiff suspect.

United States v. Anthony Roberts

778 F.3d 942 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 17, 2015

“[P]aying kickbacks alone is not sufficient to establish health care fraud” under § 1347(a)(2). Id. at 1298. … Although Roberts argues the district court relied upon clearly erroneous facts when concluding his criminal history category of I was understated, he does not identify which facts are clearly erroneous.

Kirk Michael Fields v. Kyle Howse

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2026

Fields’ deprivation of property claim was clearly established at the time of arrest. Assuming, without deciding, that Mr. … whether this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Alberto Dominguez v. Paul Abreu

610 F. App'x 948 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2015

Dominguez’s favor establish that he was handcuffed and compliant,1 there is, consequently, a triable 1 “We review de novo the district court’s disposition of a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity, resolving … Our case law does not support extending qualified immunity where the level of force used against a secured, compliant suspect was analogous to the aggressive takedown that occurred here.

Earl Hughes Burgest v. United States

316 F. App'x 955 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 3, 2009

did violate Burgest’s constitutional right to privacy, such a right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. 3  We address in this appeal whether Burgest … DISCUSSION West argues that the she is entitled to qualified immunity because Burgest has not produced any admissible evidence of a constitutional violation.

United States v. Rozier

598 F.3d 768 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2010

We find that United States Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent clearly states that both Rozier’s conviction and sentence are constitutional. … This argument runs contrary to the established law of the Supreme Court and this Circuit. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 230–35, 118 S.

Free v. Granger

887 F.2d 1552 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 1989

The state has neither consented to be sued, nor waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Furthermore, we agree with the district court that the plaintiff has not sufficiently established facts that could give rise to a violation of 42 U.S.C.

United States v. Richard Junior Frazier

387 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 2004

At trial, Frazier chose not to call Tressel at all, but did clearly establish that no seminal fluid or hair matching Frazier’s was recovered, during the investigation by calling two FBI laboratory technicians who had worked … If admissibility could be established merely by the ipse dixit of an admittedly qualified expert, the reliability prong would be, for all practical purposes, subsumed by the qualification prong.

Nell D. Autery, as Administratrix of the Estate of Roy Franklin Autery Charlotte Schreiner v. United States

992 F.2d 1523 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 1993

This waiver of immunity, however, is qualified by several exceptions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680 . … The government argues that the conduct to be evaluated is “the Park Service’s decision to establish and implement a tree inspection program. Gov’t Br. at 9.

Elaine Rogers, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees v. Windmill Pointe Village Club Association, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Claim-Plaintiffs-Appellants

967 F.2d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 1992

Sapinkopf, to meet their burden of establishing that they qualify for the “older persons” exception, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits. … Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established the existence of irreparable injury.

Roderick MacPherson and Marvin Narz v. University of Montevallo

922 F.2d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 1991

Such a professor is deemed qualified to teach any course within his field, regardless of the courses he actually teaches. 7 . … State of Washington, 770 F.2d 1401, 1405 (9th Cir.1985) ("[disparate impact analysis is confined to cases that challenge a specific, clearly delineated employment practice applied at a single point in the job selection process

Scott Millspaugh v. Randy Crider

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 22, 2022

of the Court 22-10132 clearly established First Amendment rights. … Once this threshold inquiry is met, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that qualified immunity is not appropriate. Id.

Shaw v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh

605 F.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 13, 2010

First, he argues that the period at the end of paragraph 1 in the lump-sum rider “establishes the disjunction between Paragraphs 1 and 2.” … Here, no evidence suggests that other insurers customarily define permanent total disability in a way that would more “clearly” effect National Union’s interpretation of the policy.

Vincent Angiolillo v. Collier County

394 F. App'x 609 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2010

Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendants Bates, Celiberti, Hurley The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants Bates, Celiberti, and Hurley, concluding that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity … However, to receive qualified immunity from a false-arrest claim, an officer need not have actual probable cause but only “arguable” probable cause. Id.

Murray G. Lawrence vs City of Fairhope, Alabama, Wendell Thomas

429 F. App'x 900 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 10, 2011

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … If the plaintiff’s allegations taken as true establish a constitutional violation, the question becomes whether the right was clearly established. Wood, at 323 F.3d at 878.

Tamara Perry v. Greene County, Georgia

392 F. App'x 761 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 16, 2010

immunity. … Pastor, 351 F.3d 1080, 1089 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that officers are entitled to qualified immunity “if there was arguable probable cause for the arrest.”).

Andrea Gogel v. KIA Motors Manufacturing of Georgia, Inc.

967 F.3d 1121 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2020

Gogel’s internal advocacy before Kia management on behalf of other employees was clearly protected conduct. … Ledbetter, the majority does not clearly or consistently apply the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Tannenbaum v. United States

148 F.3d 1262 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 1998

The Court noted that it has long held that "a plea does not qualify as intelligent unless a criminal defendant receives "real notice of the true nature of the charge against him.' " Id., citing Smith v. … Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in denying Tannenbaum's § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence for the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).

United States v. Gerald Eugene Bennett

368 F.3d 1343 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 7, 2004

Brown’s testimony is clearly probative of, and relevant to, establishing motive, opportunity, intent, and knowledge. … The district judge did not clearly err in concluding that Bennett’s testimony concerning his failure to hear the police announce their presence qualified as perjury for purposes of U.S.S.G. §3C1.1.