Case law

Dykes v. Hosemann

743 F.2d 1488 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 11, 1984

It is well established that judges are immune from lawsuits for damages 7 for all judicial acts not taken in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Stump v. … The standard for such qualified immunity is set out in Harlow v.

Anthony Nute v. Bryant White

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

Officer White’s principal theory in support of his view that he is entitled to qualified immunity (on the clearly established law prong) is that “[n]o control- ling precedent clearly established that [he] … To do that Nute must establish it was clearly established at the time he was assaulted that White’s failure to intervene violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

Howe v. Baker

796 F.2d 1355 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 14, 1986

These concerns, weighty though they may be, do not justify granting officials an absolute immunity. Instead, they can be satisfied through application of a qualified immunity. Harlow v. … These decisions did not clearly establish that the right to be transferred or suspended only with cause was also property.

Wilson v. Strong

156 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 1998

General Qualified Immunity Principles Qualified immunity shields a § 1983 defendant from liability for harms arising from her discretionary acts, so long as her acts do not violate any clearly established statutory … Second, “[i]n this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

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." … standard determines the scope of qualified immunity.

Moniz v. City of Fort Lauderdale

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1998

whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly established.’” … We conclude, therefore, that, having violated no clearly established law, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Dianne Troupe v. Sarasota County, Florida

419 F.3d 1160 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2005

immunity.5 II. … The Defendants were Entitled to Qualified Immunity.

C. W. v. Steve Smith

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 17, 2026

Second, we explain that Smith may not avail himself of qualified immunity because his alleged conduct violated clearly established law. 1. … Smith is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity. Smith invokes qualified immunity from suit.

Gray Ex Rel. Alexander v. Bostic

613 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2010

based on qualified immunity. … immunity grounds, she must further demonstrate that the defendants violated clearly established law.

Hudson v. Hall

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2000

violated clearly established law.” … considering whether the law was clearly established.

Cofield v. Randolph County Commission

90 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1996

We need not wait for the Supreme Court explicitly to declare a law "clearly established" before finding its violation unprotected by qualified immunity. Soldal did not claim to be fashioning new law. … Thus, even if it established that a deputy sheriff's presence at a lawful repossession somehow transforms that repossession into a Fourth Amendment "seizure," this proposition was not "clearly established" for qualified immunity

Arnold Maurice Mathis v. Zulaika Zoe Vizcarrondo

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 2019

act violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” … Because the right was not clearly established at the time she searched Mathis’s cell phone, Vizcarrondo is entitled to qualified immunity. II.

Bolt v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center

980 F.2d 1381 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 1993

In so holding, the Court found that the City qualified for the immunity because it was engaged “in the challenged activity pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy.” 471 U.S. at 40 , 105 S.Ct. at 1717 . … Lafayette also suggested that to qualify for Parker immunity the municipality was required to be “actively supervised" by the State. In Town of Hallie , the Supreme Court rejected this suggestion.

Kristie Williams v. Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama, The

128 F.4th 1208 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 2025

With respect to family-care leave, the Court concluded, Con- gress had both clearly expressed its intent to abrogate state sover- eign immunity and exercised its Fourteenth Amendment enforce- ment … In the latter, Congress doesn’t need to clearly express an intent to ab- rogate sovereign immunity because there isn’t any immunity to abrogate—the states have waived it.

Joseph Harper v. Chris Perkins

459 F. App'x 822 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 29, 2012

not clearly established; (3) several of the Defendants did not personally participate in the discharge of a taser; and (4) official immunity protects the Defendants from Harper’s state law claims. … A right may be “clearly established” in three ways.

Rosario v. American Corrective Counseling Services, Inc.

506 F.3d 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2007

Edmond, 192 F.3d 1342, 1346-47 (11th Cir. 1999) (concluding that prison health care director employed by contractor not eligible for qualified immunity for § 1983 claim where County could not hire or fire contractor employees … McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997), which rejected qualified immunity for prison guards employed by a private contractor. 12 participants are made payable to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit

Jenkins v. Talladega City Bd. of Ed

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 1996

of implementing the Anderson Court's clarification of the appropriate level of generality at which a right must be "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity. … establish the law in this case for qualified immunity purposes.

Brantley Tyler Rayburn v. Dora L. Farnesi

241 F.3d 1341 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 16, 2001

Additionally, the Hogues argued that they were not State actors for Fourteenth Amendment purposes, and even if they were, the federal law as to foster parents was not clearly established.8 Based on these arguments, the Defendants … on this claim, the court found that the Hogues were not entitled to qualified immunity because they were State actors, the law was clearly established as to foster parents, and there was a jury question on the issue of

Kevin Danley v. Ruby Allen

480 F.3d 1090 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2007

The defendant-appellants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Danley’s claims. The district court entered one-sentence orders denying each of the various motions to dismiss. … While this Court certainly could review the record and applicable case law and render a reasoned decision on the qualified immunity issue, this is the responsibility of the district court in the first instance.

Rowe v. Schreiber

139 F.3d 1381 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

“For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious … In this case, for qualified immunity not to apply, the right which must be clearly established is some right to have the resources of the public defender’s office administratively allocated