Case law

Christopher Bryant White v. City of LaGrange, GA

538 F. App'x 892 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 5, 2013

The district court held that Clower was entitled to qualified immunity because Clower did not violate a clearly established right. … White contends that the facts asserted in his affidavit show that Clower violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Jackie Dale Reagan, Kathy Reagan vs Mark Mallory

429 F. App'x 918 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … These divergent opinions highlight the fact that it was not clearly established in 2006, when the events of this case occurred, nor is it clearly established today, that § 776.032 immunity applies when a person uses force

William E. Jones v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

681 F.2d 1376 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1982

Clearly, the restrictions *1381 found in Section 604 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constitute neither a right nor a remedy under the aforementioned definitions. … As a general rule, laws which fix duties, establish rights and responsibilities among and for persons ... are ‘substantive laws’____” Black’s Law Dictionary, supra, at 1083.

United States v. Vytautas Gecas

50 F.3d 1549 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 13, 1995

When faced with a question of fact, we defer to the district court’s findings unless those determinations are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). … The North Dakota court suggests that the United States enter into treaties with other countries binding them to grant immunity to certain witnesses to the same extent that the United States grants immunity.

Federal Trade Commission v. Leshin

618 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 3, 2010

acceptance, Express was not qualified to conduct business. … The district court did not clearly err when it found that the defendants failed to comply with the laws of Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee.

United States v. Michael St. Hubert

883 F.3d 1319 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 2018

Meacham, 626 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1980), establishes that a district court is without jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea to a ‘non-offense.’” … Ct. at 379-80; While these decisions are relevant to our analytical approach, they did not involve Hobbs Act robbery or attempted robbery, or the use-of-force clause in § 924(c)(3)(A), and thus are not clearly on

Carl B. Hillemann, Jr. v. Univ. of Central Florida

167 F. App'x 747 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 18, 2006

Therefore, because UCF is a state entity, it is immune from ADEA discrimination claims; and Plaintiff’s ADEA claims were properly dismissed. … A plaintiff cannot establish pretext merely by showing he or she was better qualified than the hired candidate; the plaintiff must show the hiring decision was made because of an illegal motive. See Alexander v.

United States v. Jones

913 F.2d 1552 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 11, 1990

The requisite intent is clearly established by the evidence outlined above. See United States v. … They contend that, instead of establishing a single conspiracy, the evidence did no more than establish the existence of multiple conspiracies between David Sanford Jones and each of the defendants separately.

Everette Weaver v. David R. Ellsperman

589 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 17, 2014

established at the time Ellsperman engaged in the conduct complained of. … Absent such showing, Ellsperman was entitled to qualified immunity. As the District Court properly held, Weaver failed to make the required showing. 2

Jose Vielma v. Adam Todd Gruler

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2020

Finally, even assuming Plaintiffs’ allegations stated a constitutional claim, the court concluded that qualified immunity applied because the law was not clearly established that Gruler’s actions violated the victims’ … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Treadwell v. Alexander

707 F.2d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 16, 1983

Nothing in the record suggests Treadwell met this evidentiary requirement or that the court’s conclusions were clearly erroneous. AFFIRMED. . … This private right of action was established by adding a new § 505(a)(1), 29 U.S.C.A. § 794a(a)(l), to the Rehabilitation Act providing: The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act

Michael Dennis Straub v. Geoffrey Monge, as Sheriff of Sarasota County, Florida, Defendant- Michael Dennis Straub v. The Chairperson of the Sarasota County Board of Commissioners, Jim Hardcastle, the Sheriff of Sarasota County, Fl, Defendants

815 F.2d 1467 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 1987

immunity foreclosing an award of damages. … Jackson, 789 F.2d at 311 . 5 14 We agree with the district court's ruling regarding immunity. The right in this case is well established. 15 Accordingly, the district court order is affirmed. 16 AFFIRMED.

Eric Watkins v. Dunkin Finch

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 3, 2020

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense entitling a government actor to avoid litigation where he or she was engaged in discretionary conduct that did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … As a result, to overcome qualified immunity, Watkins bears the burden to demonstrate that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Gaines, 871 F.3d at 1208.

Mike Redford v. Gwinnett County Judicial Circuit

350 F. App'x 341 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2009

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the ‘burden of persuasion’ as to each of the four prerequisites.” … We have also stated the “[t]he defense of sovereign or qualified immunity protects government officials not only from having to stand trial, but from having to bear the burdens attendant to litigation, including pretrial

In re: Courtney Wild

955 F.3d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2020

some cooperation in exchange for federal immunity. … Undisputedly, the petitioners qualify as “crime victims” as defined in the CVRA.

Jimmy L. Hatfield v. Diana O'Neill

534 F. App'x 838 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2013

Defendant/Appellant Diana O’Neill (“O’Neill”) appeals the magistrate judge’s denial of her motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Clearly Established Law O’Neill also claims that in the event we find a constitutional violation, she is still entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right she violated was not clearly established

Gaudencio Garcia-Celestino v. Consolidated Citrus Limited Partnership

843 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2016

Ct. 1344 (1992), that the settled common law meaning of a statutory term applies unless the statute otherwise clearly dictates or defines the term. … Whether an entity qualifies as a joint employer is a question of law.

Kevin Lewis v. Sheriff, Fulton County Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2026

compensatory damages for these claims, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant 4 The court granted summary judgment for the sheriffs on Lewis’s § 1983 money damages claims, concluding they were immune … Under both statutes, a plaintiff raising a disability discrimi- nation claim must show that (1) he is a “qualified individual with a USCA11 Case: 23-12754 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 01/28/2026 Page:

Cris D'Angelo v. Conagra Foods, Inc.

422 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2005

Thus, to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate “that (1) he has a disability, (2) he is a ‘qualified individual,’ which is to say, able to perform the essential … As an initial matter, ConAgra argues that D'Angelo abandoned her actual-impairment claim on appeal, since she did not clearly assert it in her opening brief.

Knight v. Georgia

992 F.2d 1541 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1993

On January 27, 1991, the district court denied the motion, finding that the Georgia law constitutes a “subterfuge to evade the purposes of [the ADEA]” and therefore does not qualify for the § 4(j) exemption. … before an employer was subject to the ADEA are held per se not to be subterfuges, Betts, 492 U.S. at 168 , 109 S.Ct. at 2861 ; United Air Lines, 434 U.S. at 203-04 , 98 S.Ct. at 450-51 , the age 55 retirement requirement is immune