Case law

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.

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.

Jones Jr. v. Preuit & Mauldin

822 F.2d 998 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 24, 1987

In the context of deciding whether these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, we are deciding whether or not their actions were clearly unconstitutional. … clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 14 They are thus entitled to immunity from damages insofar as the seizure of Mr.

Michael D. Porter v. Bob White

483 F.3d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 12, 2007

DISCUSSION The district court held that Fairbanks was entitled to qualified immunity on Porter’s due process claim, concluding that Fairbanks had not violated a “clearly established” principle of constitutional law … We proceed to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry — the prong on which Fairbanks and Porter have focused — only “[i]f a constitutional right would have been violated under the plaintiff’s

Wright v. Whiddon

951 F.2d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 14, 1992

In order for a right to be clearly established and defeat an official's claim to qualified immunity, 9 [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing … Wright's parents contend that Garner clearly established the right of a nondangerous suspect to be free of the use of deadly force to effect his capture, and that Ireland is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. 13

Hardin v. Hayes

957 F.2d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 9, 1992

Baldwin County Bd. of Educ., 908 F.2d 1499 , 1503 (11th Cir.1990). 13 Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity. 27 Based upon the foregoing facts, Sheriff Hayes is likewise entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Wu v. Thomas

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

Qualified immunity is no defense to a Title VII action. But defendants could assert qualified immunity once plaintiffs tried to recover damages under section 1983 for the alleged Title VII violation. … "General propositions have little to do with the concept of qualified immunity." Muhammad v. Wainwright, 839 F.2d 1422, 1424 (11th Cir.1987).

Wood v. City of Lakeland, FL

203 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 16, 2000

Qualified immunity protects government officials who have acted within their discretionary authority from civil trials and other litigation burdens "if their conduct violates no 'clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendant Thompson is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Kingsland v. City of Miami

369 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 2004

Qualified Immunity 1. General Principles If the defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity, we must affirm summary judgment in their favor. … “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 person

Douglas Asphalt Co. v. Qore, Inc.

541 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 2008

were clearly established at the time the officer acted. … Having found no constitutional violation, we do not reach the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Adams Ex Rel. Adams v. Poag

61 F.3d 1537 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 1995

Qualified immunity insulates government actors, in their individual capacities, from civil lawsuits as long as the challenged discretionary conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … Alabama A & M University Bd. of Trustees, 28 F.3d 1146, 1149 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc) 2 In order for the right to be clearly established such that qualified immunity will not apply, the right must have been sufficiently

Castle v. Appalachian Technical College

627 F.3d 1366 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 21, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials sued in their individual capacity from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, notwithstanding the constitutional violation, we cannot say that the district court erred in deciding that, for qualified immunity purposes, it was not clearly established at the time Castle was suspended that

Charles A. Rehberg v. James v. Paulk

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2010

Because the federal law was not clearly established, the district court erred in denying qualified immunity to Paulk on Rehberg’s email subpoena claim.17 IV. … immunity because Rehberg’s right to be free from a retaliatory investigation is not clearly established.

Mario Valdes v. James v. Crosby, Jr.

450 F.3d 1231 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 31, 2006

Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir. 2002)).3 Once eligibility for qualified immunity is established, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate. … Clearly Established Law Crosby argues that even if Mario Valdes established a constitutional violation, he is protected by qualified immunity because while it may have been clearly established that Valdes’ constitutional

Joe Marsh v. Butler County, Alabama

225 F.3d 1243 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2000

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil suit when they have acted within their discretionary functions in a manner that violates "no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … entitled to qualified immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss only if the complaint fails to allege facts that would show a violation of a clearly established constitutional [or federal statutory] right."

Justin Hammett v. Paulding County, Georgia

875 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 17, 2017

The court did not address whether the law was clearly established in either case because it found no violations in the first place. … We need not address the question of clearly established law because Plaintiff has not shown a constitutional right was violated. Thus qualified immunity turns on whether the officers used excessive force, as alleged.

Hart v. Hodges

587 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 17, 2009

Subsequent Supreme Court decisions established outer bounds on what activities qualify for prosecutorial immunity and to which individuals it applies. … And we necessarily take no position on whether the Defendants’ alleged actions violated Hart’s constitutional rights or whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time of violation. See Pearson v.

Holmes v. Georgia ex rel. Strickland

503 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability in their individual capacity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Once a defendant establishes this, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that qualified immunity is not appropriate. Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir.2002).