Case law

Carol Stavropoulos v. Evan Firestone

361 F.3d 610 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 25, 2004

If we find that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, we must ask whether the right was clearly established. Id. … If we find that the conduct did not violate a constitutional right, or that the right was not clearly established, then the officer is shielded from suit by qualified immunity. Id.

Johnson v. City of Fort Lauderdale

126 F.3d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 5, 1997

of clearly established law on the part of each defendant.2 Turning from this aside, we now state the facts. … established at the relevant times.

Washington v. Kirksey

811 F.2d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 2, 1987

Qualified Immunity Kirksey contends that the district court erred in failing to find that his conduct would be shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court established an objective test *565 of qualified immunity: “[GJovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded

Grayden v. Rhodes

345 F.3d 1225 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2003

long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … In sum, a government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right and if the contours of the right were defined with such clarity that

Shirley Dahl v. Jim Holley

312 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2002

Qualified Immunity Analysis In considering whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Dahl’s § 1983 claims, we must first determine whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Dahl, establish … If no constitutional violation is established, then the officers prevail, and “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S. Ct. at 2156.

Salvador Magluta v. F.P. Sam Samples

375 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2004

conduct was clearly established. … 26 entitled to qualified immunity.

Boyce v. Andrew

510 F.3d 1333 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 21, 2007

and (2) was that constitutional right clearly established? Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … “The relevant, dispositive inquiry” for determining clearly established law is whether a reasonable government employee’s conduct was clearly unlawful in the situation confronted. Id.

Joseph MacUba v. Matthew Deboer, Michael Youseff, Charlotte Commissioners, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

193 F.3d 1316 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 29, 1999

did not violate a clearly established principle of First Amendment law). … In subpart B, we conclude that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the refusal to hire. A.

Bates v. Hunt

3 F.3d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 1993

"The words 'clearly established ... constitutional rights' may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedient of stating the constitutional right in its most general possible terms … Sims, 972 F.2d at 1234-35 (illustrating kinds of fact issues immaterial to qualified immunity).

Charles Lewis v. Freddie Smith, Mark Smith and Arnold Holt

855 F.2d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 1988

Contrary to defendants’ argument, they were not entitled to prevail on a qualified, good faith immunity defense. … . -, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (government official is not entitled to defense of qualified immunity where he violates clearly established constitutional rights).

Jones v. Preuit

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. … The court further held that, once it is determined that the right was clearly established, "if the official pleading the [qualified immunity] defense claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew or

Jones v. Cannon

174 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 1999

This Circuit has held that dicta cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996); see also Adams v. St. … as there was no clearly established right in this Circuit.14 I.

Jeremy Jones v. David Ceinski, Jr.

136 F.4th 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 2025

The magistrate judge granted Ceinski’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Jones’s Right Was Clearly Established. Jones must also show that his right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Helm v.

Robert Barnett, Cross-Appellant v. The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Mrs. Dorothy L. Kelly, Cross-Appellees

707 F.2d 1571 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 1983

The individual defendants also relied on a claim of qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Colin A. Edwards v. Bryan C. Shanley

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

“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 … As a result, Officer Shanley cannot claim qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not know he was violating Edwards’s constitutional rights.5 In sum, we hold that clearly established federal law prohibits

Walker v. Schwalbe

112 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 1997

briefs arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law that a demotion for violation of an anti-nepotism policy violates a person's rights. … established right; in other words, we cannot decide the core qualified immunity question.

Powell v. Barrett

496 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2007

The Supreme Court has established a two- part test to determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Hamilton, 80 F.3d at 1530.

Shirley Hill, Individually and Mark Anthony Hill, Individually v. Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center, County of Dekalb, Georgia A/K/A Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center, Faye Swain, Shirley Hill, Individually and Mark Anthony Hill, Individually v. Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center, County of Dekalb, Georgia A/K/A Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center, Donald Wilkinson and Dolphus Lewis

40 F.3d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 27, 1994

conduct 17 does not violate clearly established federal law. … Swain is entitled to qualified immunity because she violated no clearly established Eighth Amendment law in August, 1987.

Busby v. City of Orlando

931 F.2d 764 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 17, 1991

legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … The defendants, however, made no other argument as to qualified immunity.

Wu v. Thomas

847 F.2d 1480 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 1988

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in promotion, a plaintiff must prove: (1) he or she is a member of a protected minority; (2) was qualified for and applied for the promotion; (3) was rejected despite these … Appellant clearly failed to show she was qualified for promotion to professor. Appellant also failed to prove that an equally or less qualified male was promoted during the time of her promotional application.