Case law

Feraci v. Grundy Marine Construction Co.

315 F. Supp. 2d 1197 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 11, 2004

failure to establish the intentional tort exception to Grundy’s immunity. … According to Plaintiffs, that evidence is sufficient to establish the intentional tort exception to Grundys’ workers’ compensation immunity.

BAILEY v. SWINDELL

District Court, N.D. Florida · Dec 4, 2021

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) the official’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation … Smith, 668 F.3d 1244, 1256 n.5 (11th Cir. 2012) (decisions issued after the events in dispute occurred cannot clearly establish the law for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity); Belcher v.

PETERKA v. DIXON

District Court, N.D. Florida · Nov 1, 2023

as “discretionary” for qualified immunity purposes. … In other words, Plaintiff cannot allege new facts to show that his substantive due process claim was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Chapman v. Space Qualified Systems Corp.

647 F. Supp. 551 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 26, 1986

It appears that these allegations of impropriety were made by the defendant, Space Qualified Systems Corporation, a defense contractor, and included charges that the plaintiff, a retired Major General in the Air Force, used … It is important to recognize, however, that the Speech or Debate Clause serves “the additional function of reinforcing the separation of powers so deliberately established by the Founders.” United States v.

DEWITT v. HANEY

District Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2023

Dewitt argues that qualified immunity does not apply (both because Defendants acted beyond their discretionary authority and because they violated a clearly established right) and that the magistrate judge “entirely … Because it is plain here that Dewitt’s allegedly absolute right to film in the probation-office lobby was not clearly established, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Dewitt’s § 1983 damages claim

Council of Insurance Agents + Brokers v. Gallagher

287 F. Supp. 2d 1302 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Sep 30, 2003

Garcia, 760 F.2d 38, 38 (1st Cir.1985) (striking down Puerto Rico’s law that nonresidents did not qualify for insurance consultant licenses, expressly holding that “Puerto Rico’s refusal to issue a license ... implicated … That the claims at issue arise partly under the Privileges and Immunities Clause makes no difference.

Diaz v. Moore

861 F. Supp. 1041 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 24, 1994

Further, the named parties in Diaz I clearly “... had the incentive to adequately litigate the claims in the same character or capacity as would ...” … The Court would find them immune on the basis of qualified immunity as well. Based on the facts of this case, the defendants' conduct was objectively reasonably in light of clearly established law. See Harlow v.

Harris v. Bush

106 F. Supp. 2d 1272 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Jul 25, 2000

Rather, in those cases in which the facts do not establish a true controversy, summary judgment is the preferred method of disposing of the case. See id. … Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 , 10 S.Ct. 504 , 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890), and it is well established that the states and their agencies are immune from suit for monetary damages, Edelman v.

Carr v. Bell

492 F. Supp. 832 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Jun 18, 1980

Deputy Bell has raised and failed to prove the qualified immunity defense. His actions were deliberate, made with full knowledge that Mr. Carr was not breaking the law. … He was not acting in good faith and is not protected by the qualified immunity of police officers. See, Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). Mr.

RHILES

District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 30, 2026

Lee asserts he has qualified immunity and thus cannot be held liable even if he used constitutionally excessive force and injured Mr. Rhiles as alleged. … The law has long been clearly established that an officer cannot use substantial force against a prisoner for no reason. See Skrtich v.

United States v. Gecas

830 F. Supp. 1403 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 11, 1993

This is clearly not the case. … In any event, the Court already had established that the federal government could, under the Supremacy Clause, grant immunity from state prosecution. Accordingly, state law could not prevent a federal investigation.

BLACK v. DUFOUR

District Court, N.D. Florida · Sep 29, 2023

clearly established law.” … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) the official’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation

SHULLAW v. MCMULLEN

District Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v. … If the constitutional right was not clearly established, then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Henry v. City of Tallahassee

149 F. Supp. 2d 1324 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2001

City of Miami, 133 F.3d 1443, 1446 (11th Cir.1998) (explaining, in an action against individual defendants who raised a qualified immunity defense, that it was not clearly established in the Eleventh Circuit that an EEOC … The foregoing allegations establish a cause of action for violation of Plaintiffs right to free speech, right to petition, and right of access to courts.... Second Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 11, 36.

BAILEY v. SWINDELL

District Court, N.D. Florida · May 13, 2021

More specifically, the Eleventh Circuit expressly held—viewing the record in the light most favorable to Bailey—that Deputy Swindell was “not entitled to qualified immunity” because he “violated clearly … At this stage, the only law of this case with respect to qualified immunity is that established by the Eleventh Circuit; namely, that the doctrine was not supported by the summary judgment record.1 In any

Wilson v. Moore

270 F. Supp. 2d 1328 · District Court, N.D. Florida · May 1, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a government official who was performing discretionary functions from an award of civil damages in a § 1983 action unless the official violated “clearly established statutory … None of the First Amendment claims made by Plaintiff are founded upon clearly established law. Consequently, the Defendants all have qualified immunity from an award of any damages at all, including nominal damages.

OWEN v. SHERIFF OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, FL

District Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 30, 2023

conduct was clearly established at the time.” … If so, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to overcome qualified immunity by establishing that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

United States v. Adkinson

256 F. Supp. 2d 1297 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2003

Limited Availability of Qualified Counsel Section 2412(d)(2)(A) specifically lists “limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved” as a relevant special factor. 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(2)(A). … rights claim in Blanchard , where the award was paid by a local government who lacked sovereign immunity or Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Feminist Women's Health Center, Inc. v. Mohammad

415 F. Supp. 1258 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Jun 9, 1976

Of course, even though such communications are immunized under Noerr-Pennington, evidence of such communications is admissible to establish a larger overall conspiracy. See An-not. 17 A.L.R.Fed. 645, 667 (1973). … However, the facts in Padgett clearly distinguish the position of the defendant there from that of the defendants in this suit.

Peel v. Florida Department of Transportation

443 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 31, 1977

The States are free to establish additional rights or protections for State or local employees than those provided by the VRR Act. See 38 U.S.C. § 2021 (a). … Congress had not clearly abrogated State immunity in the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Eleventh Amendment barred the above suit against the State of Missouri. Both parties in this case allege that Edelman v.