Case law

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

Hatcher ex rel. Hatcher v. Desoto County School District Board of Education

939 F. Supp. 2d 1232 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 5, 2013

Qualified immunity provides “complete protection for individual public officials performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The familiar two-step qualified immunity analysis involves first determining whether the defendant’s conduct amounted to a constitutional violation, and second determining whether the right violated was clearly established

Maggio v. Florida, Department of Labor & Employment Security

56 F. Supp. 2d 1370 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 19, 1999

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates ‘no clearly established … To defeat their claim of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must establish that the individual Defendants “violated her clearly established constitutional rights,” and “that a reasonable government official would have been aware

Geidel v. City of Bradenton Beach

56 F. Supp. 2d 1359 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 9, 1999

established at the time of the Officers’ actions. “ ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand … The Officers, in their individual capacities, are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Count I.

Croom v. Balkwill

672 F. Supp. 2d 1280 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 18, 2009

Plaintiff alleges that these constitutional rights to which she was deprived were clearly established, and, therefore, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. I. … If no constitutional violation is established, then no further inquiries regarding qualified immunity are needed. Id.

Cherry v. City of St. Petersburg

813 F. Supp. 2d 1351 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 25, 2011

commit torts and any such torts do not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Clearly Established Having found that the facts taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff constitute a constitutional violation, the Court will now address whether the right was clearly established.

Blanco v. City of Clearwater, Fla.

9 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 17, 1998

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates ‘no clearly established … “Once the qualified immunity defénse is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal ‘rights’ allegedly violated were ‘clearly established.’ ” Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150 n. 3 (citing Barts v.

Anderson v. City of Tampa

555 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 1, 2008

Discussion Officer Bucher contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability as long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Woods v. Valentino

511 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 14, 2007

“Clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … They also preclude a finding on the question of qualified immunity: if the Plaintiffs version is found to be true, qualified immunity would not apply as it is clearly established law that the use of force on an arrestee after

Morris v. Crow

825 F. Supp. 295 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 23, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In Harlow v. … While the Defendants argue that they are entitled to immunity, Plaintiff in the instant case has alleged that she was demoted in violation of clearly established First Amendment law.

Centerfold Club, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg

969 F. Supp. 1288 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 1997

The court then observed that the Supreme Court, in an effort to strike the optimal balance, established an objective test for qualified immunity: a government official is immune from liability “insofar as their conduct does … As for Plaintiff 3405, Inc.’s action, the Council Defendants’ motion concerning qualified immunity (Doc. No. 98) is granted. The Council Defendants do enjoy qualified immunity.

Taylor v. Florida State Fair Authority

919 F. Supp. 410 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 1, 1996

Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir.1988). *413 Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials and from liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established … Once the public official has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the public official’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law of which a reasonable person should

Whitehead v. SCHOOL BD. FOR HILLSBOROUGH CTY.

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). … Plaintiff's 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.

Dolin on Behalf of ND v. West

22 F. Supp. 2d 1343 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 21, 1998

Sims’ motion should also be granted on grounds of immunity and on the merits. A. Immunity 1. Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a public official sued in the official’s individual capacity under § 1983. … To establish a qualified immunity defense, a defendant public official must first show that the official was acting within the scope of the official’s discretionary authority. See Rich v.

McShea v. School Board

58 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 3, 2014

are entitled to qualified immunity. … In response, McShea recites an extensive amount of case law on qualified immunity and argues, in a single sentence, that because the burden of proving qualified immunity rests with Defendants, this affirmative defense is

Snodgrass v. Williams

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2020

Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are “indisputably meritless,” id. at 327, or when the claims rely on factual allegations which are “clearly baseless.” Denton v. … Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010) (rejecting the application of a heightened pleading standard for § 1983 cases involving qualified immunity)); see also Keith v.

Moore v. Schlesinger

150 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 21, 2001

Thus, while absolute immunity may be accorded under limited circumstances, qualified immunity remains the norm for executive officers who seek immunity from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct. See Harlow v. … to qualified immunity).

Dykes v. Weinberg

564 F. Supp. 536 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 15, 1983

The Court held that “governmental officials performing discretionary functions” are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … .-, 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), Weinberg is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Harris v. DIST. BD. TRUSTEES OF POLK COMMUNITY COLLEGE

9 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 18, 1998

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's ruling on the law enforcement officer defendants, saying that they were not entitled to qualified immunity because "their conduct violated clearly established law … The Circuit Court of Appeals granted qualified immunity to the university officials in Andre because the plaintiff did not allege that they violated any clearly established law. Id. at 6.

M.S. ex rel. Soltys v. Seminole County School Board

636 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 10, 2009

duties have the benefit of qualified immunity when sued in their individual capacities so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights known to a reasonable person. … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The right to be free from excessive and arbitrary corporal punishment in a school context is clearly established under the precedent of the U.S.