Case law

Bank of Jackson County v. L. James Cherry Raymond G. Naeyaert

980 F.2d 1362 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 11, 1993

In the alternative, the court held that appellees were immune from suit under the qualified immunity doctrine, because any deprivation did not violate BJC’s clearly established constitutional rights. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for any action which “does not violate clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Rehberg v. Paulk

598 F.3d 1268 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity because Rehberg’s right to be free from a retaliatory investigation is not clearly established.

Terry Dukes, Sr. v. Chase Gregory

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2025

duct that violated clearly established law.” … We not only found a violation of the Fourth Amendment in Bashir; we also held that, for qualified immunity purposes, it was clearly established that the officer’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment

Lassiter v. Alabama

3 F.3d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 1993

Since the contract was ambiguous, the court reasoned, it was not clearly established that the contract created a property interest. This decision reflects a misunderstanding of qualified immunity. … Because the law was clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine cannot shield the individual capacity defendants from suit.

Lenz v. Winburn

51 F.3d 1540 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 12, 1995

To strip an official of qualified immunity, “the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense....” Anderson v. … Qualified immunity analysis asks the objective question whether a reasonable officer could have believed his conduct lawful under clearly established law in light of the information the officer possessed.

Nam Dang Ex Rel. Dang v. Sheriff, Seminole County Florida

871 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2017

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … 9  Case: 15-14842 Date Filed: 09/25/2017 Page: 10 of 19 was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Maughon v. Bibb County

160 F.3d 658 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 2, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government agents engaged in discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … We must decide whether the officers violated clearly established law.

Germaine Smart v. COII Ronald England

93 F.4th 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 16, 2024

He found that qualified immunity barred Smart’s complaint because no clearly established law pro- hibited the officials from disciplining Smart. … Defendants cannot benefit from the shield of qualified immunity by arguing the law was not clearly established.

Harris v. Coweta County

406 F.3d 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2005

DISCUSSION 3 As we have often stated, “[qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … Is Scott entitled to qualified immunity?

Tindal v. Montgomery County Commission

32 F.3d 1535 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 27, 1994

A Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions, but only to the extent that those officials’ actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Thus, in order to defeat Butler’s claimed entitlement to qualified immunity, Tindal must proffer evidence that — when viewed in the light most favorable to her— demonstrates not only that Butler violated her clearly established

Ricardo McClinton v. Warden, Baldwin State Prison

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2026

The district court found that each defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because the defendants did not violate any clearly established law. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for their official conduct so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Julio Cesar Andujar v. Jorge Rodriguez

486 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2007

"Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … that qualified immunity is not appropriate.

Wu v. Thomas

996 F.2d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 1993

Defendants argue that, even if plaintiffs could recover for a Title VII violation, JNOV was still proper because Hocutt was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is no defense to a Title VII action. … “General propositions have little to do with the concept of qualified immunity.” Muhammad v. Wainwright, 839 F.2d 1422, 1424 (11th Cir.1987).

Ernest Edgar Black Jeff Wigington

811 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 2016

The officers moved for summary judgment based on official immunity under Georgia law, qualified immunity under federal law, and sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity for his discretionary actions unless he violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Case v.

Swint v. City of Wadley

11 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 18, 1994

established. … the defense of qualified immunity as to plaintiffs’ due process claims, but not as to the Fourth Amendment claims.

Thomas D. Powell v. M.C. Lennon, John Magathlin, Larry Parrish, Bobby Moore, C.W. Ala, Ed Averette

914 F.2d 1459 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 1990

In order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the right allegedly violated was clearly established and that the contours of the right were sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would … Kemp, 891 F.2d 829 , 834 n. 10 (11th Cir.1990) (cautioning against expansive definitions of qualified immunity that “add an unwarranted degree of rigidity to the law of qualified immunity.”). *1464 It is clearly established

Hamm v. Powell

874 F.2d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 1989

Nevertheless, they did not waive their right not to be held liable for conduct that did not violate clearly established law. 19 In Harlow, the Supreme Court reshaped the doctrine of qualified immunity and held that "government … officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Bishop v. City of Macon

177 F.3d 1233 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 10, 1999

On appeal Avera raises only the issue of qualified immunity.1 To survive a motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that “when the defendant acted, the law established … However, in light of the subsequent division in lower courts, we cannot say that Patterson so clearly established the law as to strip Avera of qualified immunity. 7 Although we would normally address whether § 1981 has been

Kinzy v. Warren

633 F. App'x 705 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 2, 2013

When asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, an officer must first establish that he was engaged in a discretionary function when he performed the acts at issue in the plaintiffs complaint. … To do so, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Keith Ex Rel. Estate of Cook v. DeKalb County

749 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 23, 2014

clearly established law. … Therefore, Sheriff Brown would be entitled qualified immunity on that ground as well.