Case law

Harrell v. Campbell

482 F. Supp. 2d 1368 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 9, 2007

If, as the Eleventh Circuit held in Vaughan , an officer is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity under that clearly established law when he shoots into a truck occupied by unknown suspects, reasonably … Deputy Goodman asserts those convictions establish the validity of his qualified immunity defense. Deputy Goodman invokes Heck v.

Olson v. Stewart

240 F. Supp. 3d 1251 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 8, 2017

Rugg, 221 F.3d 1283, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that a district court’s denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable only if it “pres-entís] a legal question concerning a clearly established federal right that … Olson as the nonmoving party, he can assert that there was no clearly established law showing that this arrest was improper.

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.

Schultz v. Hall

365 F. Supp. 2d 1218 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Apr 15, 2005

of their conduct was not clearly established at the time. … Plaintiff also contends that the force employed against her cannot be described as de min-imis and that the deputies conduct violated clearly established law, which precludes granting them qualified immunity.

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.

Martinez Sr. v. Taurus International Manufacturing

251 So. 3d 328 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 25, 2018

Taurus’s Summary Judgment Burden Under this statutory framework, in order for Taurus to receive immunity under the Act, Taurus must establish that (i) appellants’ lawsuit constitutes a “qualified civil liability … Of course, for the trial court to make an immunity determination at the summary judgment stage, Taurus must establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact as to each of these elements. Copeland v. Fla.

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions

181 So. 3d 471 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 17, 2015

Does not immunize violations of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or production of marijuana. … As such, wé have explained that we are obliged to uphold a proposed amendment unless it is “clearly and conclusively defective.”

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports · Apr 28, 1988

liability for his or her investigative actions. 11 The test for qualified immunity is an objective one: whether the conduct of a governmental official "violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … However, a prosecutor enjoys only qualified immunity when carrying out administrative or investigative functions.

North Brevard County Hospital District D/B/A/ Parrish Medical Center v. Deligdish

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 2024

This places him beyond the established limits of the absolute immunity doctrine. … By not doing so, Hospital fails to carry its burden of showing that the trial court—by rejecting Hospital’s claim of absolute immunity as to Counsel—violated “a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage

Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale

8 F. Supp. 2d 1369 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 6, 1998

protections of absolute and/or qualified immunity. … Then the burden shifts to Rowe to demonstrate that their conduct violated clearly established law. Id.

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

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.

Abad v. City of Marathon, FL

472 F. Supp. 2d 1374 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 8, 2007

B) Defendant Puto is Entitled to Qualified Immunity Because Plaintiffs Right was not “Clearly Established.” … Defendant Puto claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a “government official ] performing discretionary functions” and did not “violate a ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable

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.

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.

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.

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

Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade County

38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 445 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 27, 2013

As we explained in Citizens Property Insurance, “[v]ery few categories of non-final orders qualify for the use of th[e] extraordinary writ” of common law certiorari. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 104 So.3d at 351-52. … The Court held that sovereign immunity did not apply because the action was clearly operational and could not be considered as either policy or planning, especially when the actions taken were actually contrary to adopted

Stoddard v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners

509 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Dec 22, 2006

qualified immunity). … Qualified Immunity Defendants sued in their individual capacities do not have Eleventh Amendment immunity, but they do have qualified immunity.

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.