Case law

Larae Bryant v. Ray Geiger

175 F. App'x 297 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2006

State actors sued in their individual capacities for actions taken as part of their official duties are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Smith v. … If the officer has not violated the law at all, he could not possibly have violated clearly established law. Id.

Suzanne Harrell v. Larry Campbell

250 F. App'x 284 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 2007

PER CURIAM: James Goodman appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment grounded upon qualified immunity. … And, Harrell’s state court convictions do not establish Goodman’s qualified immunity defense for the reasons stated by the district court. (R.1-23 at 8, 9.)

Price v. Time, Inc.

416 F.3d 1327 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 15, 2005

While in Pensacola to participate in a pro-am golf tournament Price, a married man, visited an establishment known as “Artey’s Angels.” … The common understanding of the publishing industry clearly is that magazines like Sports Illustrated are not newspapers.

Herbert Lee Hathcock, Jr. v. Jeffrey S. Cohen

287 F. App'x 793 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2008

First Amendment Claims As to defendants’ qualified immunity defense, we employ the two-step inquiry in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (2001). … If no constitutional right has been violated, our inquiry ends and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Dr. Bernd Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida

760 F.3d 1195 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2014

The Court has not clearly established the evidentiary requirements necessary to survive the second prong of intermediate scrutiny, but Went For It explains that if the State presents “no studies,” and “the record [does] not … That notion is clearly incompatible with the First Amendment.

Delgado v. Florida Department of Corrections

659 F.3d 1311 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 13, 2011

Consequently, Delgado is not entitled to relief in federal court unless the state court adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal … In light of the foregoing discussion, Delgado has not demonstrated that the Florida Supreme Court’s denial of relief was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” § 2254

Sweat v. Miller Brewing Co.

708 F.2d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1983

As defendant recognizes, this establishes a prima facie case of sex and age discrimination. … The employer’s intent is clearly disputed in this case, and summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. See Hayden v.

Roosevelt Watkins v. The City of Montgomery, Alabama

775 F.3d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 24, 2014

Instead, the jury first had to resolve issues of fact to determine whether the deductions at issue qualified as permissible under the DOL’s guidance. … But the DOL guidance clearly provides that the phrase “serious workplace misconduct” includes “violations of state or federal laws.” 69 Fed. Reg. at 22177.

Royal Palm Village Residents, Inc. v. Monica Slider

57 F.4th 960 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2023

In practice, this strict-construction rule requires Florida courts to apply the American-rule norm unless a statute clearly says otherwise. … Accordingly, I start from the premise that if a statute like § 723.068 doesn’t clearly make a litigant a prevailing party, then that litigant doesn’t qualify.

Matthew Friedson v. Sheriff David Shoar

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 8, 2021

USCA11 Case: 20-14803 Date Filed: 11/08/2021 Page: 6 of 14 6 Opinion of the Court 20-14803 To establish entitlement to qualified immunity, an officer must first … Friedson thus bears the burden of showing that Deputy Wallace is not entitled to qualified immunity.

First Union National Bank v. Hall

123 F.3d 1374 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 1997

See Thermtron, 423 U.S. at 346, 96 S.Ct. at 590 ("[O]nly remand orders issued under section 1447(c) and invoking the grounds therein that removal was improvident and without jurisdiction are immune from review under section … We have held that, in cases to which the FDIC is a party, this section establishes an independent exception to the general rule of nonreviewability of remand orders contained in § 1447(d). See FDIC v.

33 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1520, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,902 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on Behalf of Itself and a Class of Persons Herein Delineated v. Pet Incorporated, Funsten Nut Division

719 F.2d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 7, 1983

Christiansburg, supra, at 422 , 98 S.Ct. at 701 . 7 The manner in which this standard should be applied was further qualified in Christiansburg. … Pet's argument would clearly have been relevant in rebuttal to EEOC's statistical proof.

Laurel Anderson v. United States

159 F. App'x 936 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2005

immunity is available. … immunity and that they were entitled to relief; and (4) they deserved a chance to respond to the Government’s motion to dismiss.

54 soc.sec.rep.ser. 332, Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 45,750, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 740 Willie Mae Harris, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Linda Patton, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Taenika Patton, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated John Patton, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Tommy Gordon, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Bertha J., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Fob James, Governor David Toney, Commissioner of the Alabama Medicaid Agency

127 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 6, 1997

Second, because § 1983 speaks in terms of "rights, privileges, or immunities," not merely violations of federal law, only "federal rights" are enforceable under § 1983. Id. … This requirement is contrary to established law. 103 The majority appears to have imported into the § 1983 context the framework established by Cort v.

Jiaren Shi v. U.S. Attorney General

707 F.3d 1231 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2013

The burden of proof is on the applicant for asylum to establish that he or she is a refugee. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13. There are two ways to establish refugee status. … Indeed, the use of a hitching post was so extreme that in Hope the state officials who employed it could not receive qualified immunity even though there was no existing case law explicitly forbidding such a practice.

Sammie Lee Gordon v. John E. Nagle, Warden Attorney General of the State of Alabama

2 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 22, 1993

As we have discussed above, on this issue, Alabama law is not clearly settled. … A defendant has the burden of establishing cause and prejudice, but the state has the burden of demonstrating that a procedural default has occurred. See Nichols v.

Auguste v. Reno

140 F.3d 1373 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 12, 1998

. § 1187 (West supp.1998), an alien from a qualifying country who meets certain requirements not relevant here may enter the United States without a visa for no more than ninety days if the alien waives “any right ... to … While Auguste's petition below was labeled " § 2241,” it clearly sought judicial review of an INS decision. See supra note 3.

Roger Reeves v. DSI Security Services

331 F. App'x 659 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 3, 2009

The Supreme Court has ruled sovereign immunity shields federal agencies from suit unless that agency waived sovereign immunity. Dep’t of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 119 S. … Therefore, Reeves failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

David E. Moore, an Individual v. Sun Bank of North Florida, N.A. A Florida Corporation

923 F.2d 1423 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 1991

School Board, 14 we would be “acting beyond our authority to read into section 504 limitations which Congress chose not to *1428 establish when it clearly could have done so.” 15 The question, in Arline, was whether “Federal … In view of the long established exemption of contracts of insurance or guaranty under title VI, we think it unlikely that Congress intended section 504 to apply to such contracts. 29 While it is true that courts generally

Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated

516 F.3d 955 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2008

CCBCC hires someone – a union member or a person from outside the company – to fill a management position that is clearly non-union. … P. 54(b) would qualify as a final judgment under § 1291, but the court was not asked to and did not enter a Rule 54(b) judgment in this case.