Case law

Julio Cesar Andujar v. Jorge Rodriguez

486 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 2007

"Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates 4 'clearly established … that qualified immunity is not appropriate.

Shahawy v. Harrison

875 F.2d 1529 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 1989

This conclusory accusation is not sufficient to overcome the qualified privilege provided in section 768.40. Moreover, Dr. … According to the district court, Florida’s peer review system satisfies the two prerequisites for invoking the state action immunity defense: (1) the state clearly articulated the challenged restraint as state policy, and

Cooper v. Smith

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 1996

"clearly established" rights under federal law. Id. It must be kept in mind that the sweep of qualified immunity is necessarily broad. … If we find that such a right was clearly established, then Smith is stripped of the protection that qualified immunity affords, insofar as Cooper's speech in cooperating with the GBI caused Smith's adverse employment action

Bobby Williams v. Larry Bennett

689 F.2d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 29, 1982

Similarly, we extend the preclusive effect of Pugh to the qualified immunity or good faith defense of the individual defendants. … insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin

808 F.2d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 2, 1987

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 14 In granting the defendants summary judgment, the district court also relied on the fact that P & M had acted in good faith reliance on a statute that was not clearly unconstitutional. … they violated was not clearly established.

Flores v. Cochran

137 F.3d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 23, 1998

Holston, we wrote: Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal rights allegedly violated were clearly established. . . . … Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821, 826-27 n.4 (11th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Goebert v. Lee County

510 F.3d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 21, 2007

The standard for determining whether a right is well-established for purposes of qualified immunity is whether the right violated is one about “which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … That ruling did not involve qualified immunity because Scott was sued only in his official capacity.

Desisto College, Inc. And Loren E. Horner v. Thomas P. Line

888 F.2d 755 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1989

In such activities, Defendants contended, the law grants persons carrying out legislative duties absolute immunity and persons executing administrative tasks qualified immunity from suit. … The court further held that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity did not constitute a basis for dismissal of the suit.

Martha S. Strength v. W.L. Hubert, Charles Carroll, Individually, William L. Strength, Jr. v. W.L. Hubert, Charles Carroll, Individually

854 F.2d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 6, 1988

However, in so holding, the Court made a crucial distinction between functions that receive absolute immunity and those that receive only qualified immunity: We have interpreted § 1983 to give absolute immunity to functions … Acts in furtherance of an official investigation may be cloaked in qualified immunity. See Rich v. Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir.1988).

Thomas B. Ireland v. Bill Prummell

53 F.4th 1274 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 2022

“Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the fed- eral rights allegedly violated were clearly established.” Id. … Thus, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless he (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time.” Bradley v.

Rebecca Lewis v. Douglas County, Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 2001

The Cross Court found this conduct to be in violation of clearly established. The clearly established law upon which it relied was the 1979 Supreme Court case of Davis v. … In Anderson, the Supreme Court held that for a right to be clearly established such that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Elana Casines, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Paul Murchek, Etc., Eugene Walden, Iii, Etc., William Abbey, Etc., Phillip Ware, Etc., and Louie L. Wainwright, Elana Casines, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Paul Murchek, Etc., Eugene Walden, Iii, Etc., William Abbey, Etc., Phillip Ware, Etc., and Louie L. Wainwright

766 F.2d 1494 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 1985

Qualified Immunity 28 The district court ruled that the appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Casines's right to a pre-termination hearing was clearly established at the time of her discharge. … Rather, she argues that appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct violated clearly established state law.

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

United States v. E.A. Gregory, Vonna Jo Gregory, G.W. Atkinson and Robert T. Spurlock, Jr.

730 F.2d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 23, 1984

The court proceeded to require the Government to establish a legitimate, independent source for each of the items identified by the defendants. … The people whose names were selected if not exempted, excused, or disqualified, were placed on the qualified jury wheel.

Jim Eric Chandler v. Captain William Baird

926 F.2d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 15, 1991

This conclusion, of course, compelled a finding that defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. … The defendants therefore were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Dwayne Shepard v. Hallandale Beach Police Dept.

300 F. App'x 832 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 25, 2008

To avoid summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … ) can clearly establish the law.”

Sheth v. City of Mobile

137 F.3d 1447 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 1998

suit unless they violate clearly established law”). … The district court correctly concluded that the facts alleged by plaintiff, as they relate to Webster, established a violation of clearly established law.

Anthony Oliver v. Warden Wilcox State Prison

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 23, 2025

conduct was not un- constitutional, let alone clearly established as unconstitutional. … “The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established

Mastroianni v. Bowers

160 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 1998

The district court, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Mastroianni, found that the appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity for their arrest of Mastroianni because “clearly established law dictate … Second, appellants contend that even if absolute immunity does not protect them, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law in