Case law

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.

Centerfold Club, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg

969 F. Supp. 1288 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 1997

The court then observed that the Supreme Court, in an effort to strike the optimal balance, established an objective test for qualified immunity: a government official is immune from liability “insofar as their conduct does … As for Plaintiff 3405, Inc.’s action, the Council Defendants’ motion concerning qualified immunity (Doc. No. 98) is granted. The Council Defendants do enjoy qualified immunity.

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.

Welch v. THEODORIDES-BUSTLE

677 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Jan 5, 2010

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that, as public officials or employees, they have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … Thus a public officer or employee may be held individually liable only if his or her conduct violates clearly established law.

Skf Management v. Unemployment Appeals

664 So. 2d 345 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 15, 1995

established by federal law or regulation. … Although conclusions of an agency that construes a statute with which the agency is charged to enforce are not immune from judicial review, great deference is accorded such determinations. Department of HRS v.

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports · Jan 9, 1989

faith immunity from civil action. 10 The test for qualified immunity is an objective one: whether the conduct of a governmental official violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Therefore, a chief judge would possess only a qualified good faith immunity for his or her actions under the Florida Certified Process Server Act.

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

Taylor v. Florida State Fair Authority

919 F. Supp. 410 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 1, 1996

Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir.1988). *413 Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials and from liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established … Once the public official has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the public official’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law of which a reasonable person should

Little v. State

111 So. 3d 214 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 10, 2013

We conclude that the plain language of sections 776.012, 776.013, and 776.032 can be understood as granting immunity to a person who qualifies under either section 776.012(1) or 776.013(3). … Section 776.012(1) provides another means of obtaining immunity for individuals who would not qualify for immunity under section 776.013(3).

Jared Bretherick v. State of Florida

40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 411 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 9, 2015

Even in cases involving § 1983 immunity, however, the individuals claiming immunity carry the initial burden of establishing that they were qualified for immunity at the time of the incident. See, e.g., Gentile v. … While we recognize that the Stand Your Ground law is intended to be an immunity from prosecution as opposed to just an affirmative defense, the immunity is not a blanket immunity, but rather, requires the establishment that

Holly v. Auld

450 So. 2d 217 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 3, 1984

Thus, we have a clearly expressed legislative intent in subsection 768.40(2) that malice or fraud is redressable by civil action. … This would be contrary to the well-established rule that malice or fraud strips an otherwise privileged communication of its immunity and would raise serious constitutional questions which I address below.

BRADEN WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MAVARD TRADING, LTD

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 21, 2019

Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability and suit for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established federal statutory … relief, Fuller dealt with judicial immunity, not qualified immunity.

Whitehead v. SCHOOL BD. FOR HILLSBOROUGH CTY.

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). … Plaintiff's 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.

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

Kilpatrick v. United States

578 F. Supp. 2d 1339 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Sep 26, 2008

Qualified Immunity As an initial matter, Defendant Roegner asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … To defeat qualified immunity, it must be shown that 1) the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated and 2) that those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Holloman ex rel.

Reinish v. Clark

765 So. 2d 197 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 20, 2000

We conclude that the Reinishes clearly have satisfied the standing requirements of May and its progeny. See Chiles v. … Const. [5] "`Permanent resident' means a person who has established a permanent residence as defined in subsection (18)." § 196.012(17), Fla. Stat. (1997).

Keck v. Eminisor

46 So. 3d 1065 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 25, 2010

In Stephens , review by certiorari was undertaken upon claims of qualified and absolute immunity. The court addressed the necessity for immediate interlocutory review of immunity from suit as delineated in Tucker v. … Unlike the qualified immunity for the public official in Tucker , the petitioner’s claim of immunity is based on section 768.28, Florida Statutes.

National Coalition for Students With Disabilities v. Bush

170 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Feb 20, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials cannot be held liable unless their actions violated clearly established law. … Plaintiffs have not, however, identified any other clearly established law that defendants allegedly violated.