Case law

Brown v. Ridgway

845 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 29, 2012

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a clearly established

Tague v. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

390 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 25, 2005

the clearly established right to work. 42 Plaintiff then cites Harlow v. … Qualified immunity’s protection exists as long as the official’s conduct violates no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Stachel v. City of Cape Canaveral

51 F. Supp. 2d 1326 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 22, 1999

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil Lability where “ ‘them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … However, even if this use of force was unnecessary, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that the amount of force used was unlawful. See Goodman v.

Nelson Ex Rel. the Estate of Nelson v. Prison Health Services, Inc.

991 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 30, 1997

Qualified Immunity The Sheriff argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity precludes his individual liability for civil damages. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil. damages as long as their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Wynn v. City of Lakeland

727 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 20, 2010

“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 … To receive qualified immunity protection, the government official must first establish that he was acting within his discretionary authority at the time of the alleged violation. Cottone v.

Palisano v. City of Clearwater

219 F. Supp. 2d 1249 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 14, 2002

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, governmental officials are shielded from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … defeating qualified immunity).

Gennusa v. Shoar

879 F. Supp. 2d 1337 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 17, 2012

Defendants further assert that, even if the recording violated plaintiffs’ rights, qualified immunity applies because those rights were not clearly established. … Moreover, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their actions violated plaintiffs’ clearly established rights.

Pace v. City of Palmetto

489 F. Supp. 2d 1325 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 12, 2007

In this Circuit, the law may be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only by opinions from the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, or the highest court of the state in whose … Therefore, based on the particular *1336 factual circumstances in which Ahler acted and the lack of “clearly established” case law, this Court concludes that Ahler is entitled to qualified immunity on Pace’s § 1983 claim.

Mercado v. City of Orlando

323 F. Supp. 2d 1266 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 24, 2004

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) (holding, in the context of “clearly established law,” that “[o]fficials sued for constitutional violations do not lose their qualified immunity merely because … The Court thus, finds that the law was not clearly established and that. Officer Padilla and Officer Rouse, as his supervising officer, are entitled to qualified immunity.

Swofford v. Eslinger

671 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 30, 2009

Swofford’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Swofford’s rights were clearly established. 471 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1694 (1985). Mr.

Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores

835 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 18, 2011

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Grider v. … The officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to prove (a) that the officer violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights, and (b) that the right was clearly established.

Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center

135 F. Supp. 2d 1198 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 5, 2001

This is particularly true in cases involving qualified immunity, where the court must determine whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. GJR Investments, 132 F.3d at 1367 . … rules that were “clearly established” at the *1217 time it was taken.

Florida Country Clubs, Inc. v. Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A.

98 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 23, 2000

provided qualified immunity from such a suit. … if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Anthony v. Burkhart

28 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 30, 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 to all reasonable government … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights” allegedly violated were “clearly established.” Barts v.

Mahon v. City of Largo, Fla.

829 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 26, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability when the acts complained of violate no clearly established law of which the reasonable … The burden to establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity rests with the defendant claiming immunity.

Howard v. Wilkinson

380 F. Supp. 3d 1263 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 17, 2019

"In this circuit, the law can be 'clearly established' for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … "A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle within

Rosado v. Curtis

885 F. Supp. 1538 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 27, 1995

Qualified Immunity The federal defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … However, plaintiffs fail to show that Curtis and Russell violated clearly established law. See Yalkut v.

Ware v. Barr

883 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 14, 1995

The result of the motion for summary judgment on this claim turns on the issue of qualified immunity, also known as “good faith” immunity. In Rich v. … However, the qualified immunity defense must be determined as a matter of law and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, in Howell v.

Whitehead v. School Board for Hillsborough County

932 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 28, 1996

The Supreme Court has held that qualified immunity is not just a defense to liability, but rather is an immunity from suit. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). … Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Response in Excess of 20 Pages Plaintiff bears the burden, when confronted with a qualified immunity claim, to show Defendant allegedly violated a clearly established federal right.

Wilson v. Franceschi

735 F. Supp. 395 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 5, 1990

Whether an official asserting qualified immunity is immune from suit is determined by the “ ‘objective reasonableness’ of his action assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was … Further, “Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgement unless ‘the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions