Case law

McDonough v. Mata

District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2022

Qualified immunity protects state officers from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unless ° they violate a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time the alleged violation took place … Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to show Sergeant Wright violated clearly established law on Iuly 27, 2016 and he is entitled to qualified immunity for Count 1.

Mullane v. Moreno

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 29, 2021

Ridpath is not binding in this Circuit, however, and “only binding precedent can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes.” Gilmore v. Hodges, 738 F.3d 266, 279 (11th Cir. 2013). … And, because Mullane did not adequately allege a violation of a clearly established right, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the Bivens claims.

United States Ex Rel. Feingold v. Palmetto Government Benefits Administrators

477 F. Supp. 2d 1187 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 30, 2007

Given the unambiguous, identical language of the immunity provisions, and the comparable treatment of Part A and Part B carriers by the courts, there is no reason to believe that the precedents established in Body and Sarasola … Clearly, he has had a financial incentive to repeat that success.

Consol. Gas Co. of Fla. v. City Gas Co. of Fla.

665 F. Supp. 1493 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 24, 1987

On the facts of this case, where we can find no clearly articulated state policy or codification conferring any such immunity, we hold that the conduct of Defendant City Gas of Florida, Inc. … The Court stated that its decisions had established two standards for antitrust immunity under Parker v. Brown.

Lett v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

233 F. Supp. 3d 1330 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 6, 2017

Accordingly, the court dismissed the battery claim on the grounds of workers’ compensation immunity. Thus, the same result—application of the statutory immunity—applies here, as well. … In Feliciano , the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on interlocutory appeal an order denying the police officers’ summary judgment motion *1341 based on alleged qualified immunity. 707 F.3d at 1254 .

RIVERO v. MONROE COUNTRY SHERIFFS OFFICE

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 14, 2024

The defense of qualified immunity “shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The scope of inquiry is limited to whether a complaint establishes (1) “the defendant violated a constitutional right” and (2) “the violated right was ‘clearly established.’” Id. (quoting Griffin Indus., Inc. v.

Washburn v. Shapiro

409 F. Supp. 3 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 10, 1976

Matteo, supra, 360 U.S. at 575 , 79 S.Ct. at 1341 , they were not entitled to the doctrine of immunity as established by Justice Harlan. … principally those establishing plaintiff’s criminal conviction.

Watkins v. Officer David Session

District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 18, 2021

To overcome the qualified-immunity defense, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the official deprived him of a constitutional right that was “clearly established” when the alleged offense occurred. See Saucier v. … Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” (quoting Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996)).

Fusaro v. Hialeah Housing Authority

33 F. Supp. 2d 1354 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 11, 1999

By Order dated December 10, 1998, the Court granted Maria Roca's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and dismissed her as a defendant in this action. 2 . … A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case for national origin discrimination by showing (1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position held, (3) adverse employment action occurred and (

Funderburk v. Snyder

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 17, 2023

established” for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis [ECF No. 72 pp. 1–2]; (2) the Report failed to address Defendant’s argument “that a claim for false arrest is barred if it is supported by probable cause for … Instead, Defendant argues, in cursory fashion, that the Report failed to consider whether the law was clearly established sufficient to warrant qualified immunity [ECF No. 72 pp. 1–2].

Bramsen v. Hardin

346 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 1, 1972

Chiglades in its memorandum of law argues that it qualifies as a producer of celery according to the provisions of Order 967.37 and is entitled to the issuance of a base quantity. … Since the primary purpose of the Act is regulation and limitation, anti-trust immunity complements its policy.

Portes v. City of Doral

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 3, 2025

Therefore, government officials are protected by qualified immunity when they are “acting within their discretionary authority . . . unless the official’s conduct ‘violates clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional … violation was clearly established.”

Waters v. City of Sunrise

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 5, 2023

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established … “Once the public official has established that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that qualified immunity does not apply.”

Valsaint v. City of Miami Beach, Florida

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 2, 2022

As an initial matter, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … clearly established at the time.”

Gelber by and Through Gelber v. Rozas

584 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 14, 1984

By order of 9 March, 1984, this court established a briefing schedule on this issue. The parties have now submitted their briefs and the court has fully considered the issue of jurisdiction. … It was not clearly impossible or impractical for the state to offer some form of predeprivation hearing.

Woods v. Reeve

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 15, 2023

“To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show first, that the defendant violated a constitutional right and, second, that the right was ‘clearly established.’” … 4 “[O]nly binding precedent can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes.”

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, SHERIFF'S LODGE v. Brescher

579 F. Supp. 1517 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 13, 1984

The first step here is to examine subdivision (b) of Rule 23 in order to establish the proper context in which to make this inquiry. … (West Supp.1983), which provides for waiver of sovereign immunity, render Sikes obsolete.

United States v. Sokoloff

696 F. Supp. 1451 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 15, 1988

It is settled law that a court is without authority to grant use immunity to a witness under the federal statutes. As stated by the Supreme Court, “[n]o court has authority to immunize a witness. … On appellate review our decision is subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v.

Diaz v. Inch

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 7, 2021

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[I]t is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the ‘complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’

Kidwell v. McCutcheon

962 F. Supp. 1477 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 30, 1996

In quashing the subpoena, Judge Paine held: The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States requires that a reporter be immune from subpoenas in criminal eases regarding his or her work product unless the party … The claim is that the order compelling testimony violates the First Amendment which provides: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the