Case law

Giraldo v. City of Hollywood Florida

142 F. Supp. 3d 1292 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 19, 2015

The Officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and so Counts I and II should be dismissed. … The Officers also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Count IV.

Rice-Lamar v. City of Fort Lauderdale

54 F. Supp. 2d 1137 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 25, 1998

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Therefore, based on the facts construed in the light most favorable to Lamar, the individual defendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity. See Martin v.

Dalrymple v. Reno

164 F. Supp. 2d 1364 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 1, 2001

Defendants assert entitlement to qualified immunity. … Nor is the Court aware of any such holding; at the very least, the absence of case law clearly establishing the illegality of such conduct would entitle Defendant to qualified immunity.

Brent v. United States

66 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 2, 1999

For a right to be “clearly established” 'for qualified immunity purposes, previous case law must have developed it in a concrete factual context so as to make it obvious to a reasonable government actor that his actions violate … Grim the qualified immunity motion is GRANTED.

Shepard v. PERYAM

657 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 23, 2009

The defense of qualified immunity offers “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as ‘their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that in this Circuit the law can be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, “only by decisions of the U.S.

Florida Paraplegic Ass'n v. Martinez

734 F. Supp. 997 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 30, 1990

are shielded [by the doctrine of qualified immunity] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To overcome the qualified immunity of the individual defendants, plaintiff must show that the rights violated were so clearly established that a reasonable person would have known of their violation. See Anderson v.

Dees v. City of Miami

747 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 12, 1990

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The qualified immunity doctrine protects defendants Fleming, Vivian and Ilhardt.

Keating v. City of Miami

598 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 20, 2009

Qualified Immunity First, all of the individual Defendants have asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the First Amendment violations asserted against them in their individual capacity as it is not clearly established that it is unconstitutional

Battiste v. Lamberti

571 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 11, 2008

Qualified immunity protects a public actor sued under federal law from liability unless his or her conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis is whether Cardona’s right to be free from unreasonable force was “clearly established” at the time of Barcelo’s and Pulitano’s actions.

Woods v. Paradis

380 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 22, 2005

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 … Because the allegations of the complaint, if taken as true, were sufficient to establish that constitutional violations may have occurred, the Court ruled that the issue of qualified immunity had to be resolved on summary

Allen v. School Board of Broward County

782 F. Supp. 2d 1340 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 2, 2011

Courts also analyze whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the incident. Id. … If the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right and that right was “clearly established,” then the public official is not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. a.

Roes v. FLORIDA DEPT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES

176 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 24, 2001

of qualified immunity. … Simply put, "If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate."

Pastrana v. United States

670 F. Supp. 954 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 8, 1987

Qualified Immunity 39. … that it is Defendant’s position that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 40.

Hornfeld v. City of North Miami Beach

29 F. Supp. 2d 1357 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 9, 1998

Because qualified immunity shields public officials from involvement in non-meritorious suits that interfere with the performance of their official functions, entitlement to qualified immunity must be determined at the earliest … Qualified Immunity Conferred on Public Officials The Supreme Court established a test to determine whether a public official can claim qualified immunity. See Harlow v.

Rindley v. Gallagher

890 F. Supp. 1540 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 21, 1995

“Once a defendant pleads a defense of qualified immunity, ‘[o]n summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action … The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects government officials performing discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Deffendall v. Indian River County Sheriff

District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 18, 2024

To overcome a qualified- immunity defense, a plaintiff must (1) allege facts that, “if true, establish a constitutional violation” and (2) show that “the right violated was ‘clearly established.’” Grider v. … Only the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Florida Supreme Court can “clearly establish” the law for purposes of qualified immunity.

Albajon v. Gugliotta

72 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 7, 1999

Nonetheless, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The government asserts that Agent Gugliotta is entitled to qualified immunity because she violated no clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Ramos v. Sedgwick County Sheriff's Department

785 F. Supp. 1457 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 29, 1991

Beyond that, we hold that the facts clearly warrant a finding of arguable probable cause, and therefore a finding of qualified immunity. … immunity is clearly a defense to the civil rights action; qualified immunity ... is not a defense to the state charges....

Kamenesh v. City of Miami

772 F. Supp. 583 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 15, 1991

Defendants’ Assertion of Qualified Immunity Defendants, in their individual capacities, contend that their actions are entitled to qualified immunity from Kamenesh’s constitutional tort claims. 13 “[Gjovernment officials … its discussion of qualified immunity to those general parameters. 14 .

Spence-Jones v. Rundle

991 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 20, 2013

was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … second, that the unlawfulness of the Defendant’s actions was clearly established at the time of the incident.