Case law

Byford v. Stephens

299 F. Supp. 2d 1253 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 7, 2003

“Clearly Established” Law In the , alternative, even if it could be said that Officer Stephens lacked arguable probable cause for Plaintiffs arrest, this Court finds that he is still entitled to qualified immunity because … For an asserted right to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, “its contours ‘must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Marrero v. City of Hialeah

581 F. Supp. 1207 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 8, 1984

Stated another way, the Marreros can only defeat Rashkind’s qualified immunity by showing that the constitutional right allegedly infringed by [him] was clearly established at the time of [his] conduct, [that he] knew or … To defeat Rashkind’s qualified immunity, the Marreros must demonstrate the existence “of clearly established judicial decisions that make his action[s during the seizure] unconstitutional,” Rheaume, 666 F.2d at 930 , or the

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.

Lippman v. City of Miami

719 F. Supp. 2d 1370 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 16, 2010

“[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 a reasonable … Assuming the plaintiff can establish both parts of the test, the government officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Murray v. Rosati

929 So. 2d 1090 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 3, 2006

The general rule is that state actors are not subject to suit if they establish that they are entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. … immunity).

EH ex rel. Moore v. City of Miramar

111 F. Supp. 3d 1307 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 19, 2015

The Eleventh Circuit found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity since the use of deadly force was reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case and there was no clearly established law at the time … established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Oliver v. City of Orlando

574 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 20, 2008

Once a defendant establishes that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate. Id. … Second, if such violation occurred, the Court must determine whether that right was clearly established. Id.

Hastings v. Demming

682 So. 2d 1107 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 31, 1996

We concluded, instead, that the trial court had clearly indicated that there were unresolved issues of fact as to whether or not the appellant was entitled to such immunity. … In responding to a certified question, the court in Tucker held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment asserting the defense of qualified immunity to a federal civil rights claim brought in a Florida court was

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.

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions (Financial Impact Statement)

Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 27, 2014

When read together, the title and summary are still misleading because they do not clearly and unambiguously disclose to voters that those with “conditions” would qualify for medical marijuana under the amendment’s text … And while the definition in the amendment’s text of what qualifies for medical marijuana as a “Debilitating Medical Condition” includes a specific list of diseases that are clearly “debilitating” (such as cancer,

Henry Co. Homes, Inc. v. Curb

548 F. Supp. 2d 1281 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 11, 2008

It is well settled that “[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 … It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether under qualified immunity analysis those rights were clearly established at the time.

State v. Caamano

105 So. 3d 18 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 26, 2012

Caamano moved to dismiss the charge, alleging immunity pursuant to section 776.05, Florida Statutes (2010), which provides qualified immunity for a law enforcement officer’s use of force in making an arrest. … In such a situation, the law at issue is not a clearly established principle of law.

Fernandez v. City of Cooper City

207 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 10, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of *1376 which … Qualified immunity recognizes that, "where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest ■ may be better served by action taken ‘with independence

St. Louis v. Sands

401 F. Supp. 2d 1351 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 8, 2005

Because nothing on the face of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint demonstrates that Defendant acted with racial animus to de *1360 prive Plaintiff of a clearly established § 1981 right, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity … Plaintiff has thus failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right and Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs claim for the violation of his First amendment rights. 9 *1363

Dept. of Children and Families v. Feliciano

259 So. 3d 957 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 28, 2018

19  the qualified immunity of public officials is illusory and the very policy that animates the decision to afford such immunity is thwarted. … Well-settled Florida law clearly establishes that, as an inspecting agency who is not an owner or operator of the day care facility, DCF is sovereignly immune as a matter of law on the very face of Count IV of the amended

Ghandour v. CITY OF MIAMI DADE

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 9, 2024

Moreover, Plaintiff is correct that the right Davis allegedly violated was clearly established. (See Resp. 7–8). … Accordingly, Davis is entitled to qualified immunity as to Count VI. C.

Blake v. CITY OF PORT SAINT LUCIE

73 So. 3d 905 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 16, 2011

In Bates , a former employee sued a public official for defamation, arguing that the provisions of section 943.149(4), Florida Statutes (2008), qualified the absolute immunity otherwise afforded to a public official. … We affirmed, reasoning that “[sjection 943.139(4) fails to clearly abrogate, limit, or qualify the abso *907 lute immunity provided the [official] under common law.” Bates, 31 So.3d at 213 .

Dunagan v. Seely

533 So. 2d 867 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 28, 1988

Yamuni, 529 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1988), in which the court considered the establishment in Commercial Carrier Corporation v. … There, the court determined that the case worker actions did not rise to the level of basic policy making decisions and thus did not qualify for immunity under the Commercial Carrier exception. Compare Durrance v.

Feldman v. Glucroft

522 So. 2d 798 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 4, 1988

There is an absolute, rather than a qualified, immunity from defamation actions in all judicial and legislative hearings; moreover, this type of immunity applies in many other professional, licensing, and administrative proceedings … We accept the legislative determination that, without this type of qualified immunity, a viable health care peer review process would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain.