Case law

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).

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n

46 So. 3d 1051 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 6, 2010

Geoghegan, 702 So.2d 517, 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (qualified immunity). … In Tucker , our supreme court observed that the qualified immunity afforded to public officials would be illusory, and the underlying policy for the immunity would be thwarted, if nonfinal orders denying qualified immunity

Crenshaw v. City of Defuniak Springs

891 F. Supp. 1548 · District Court, N.D. Florida · May 12, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defendant Standley maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity, as he did not violate clearly established constitutional law. I agree. … Two questions of law must be decided in completing the second part of the qualified immunity analysis: First, the court must ascertain whether the legal norm allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the defendant

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.

Dolin on Behalf of ND v. West

22 F. Supp. 2d 1343 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 21, 1998

Sims’ motion should also be granted on grounds of immunity and on the merits. A. Immunity 1. Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a public official sued in the official’s individual capacity under § 1983. … To establish a qualified immunity defense, a defendant public official must first show that the official was acting within the scope of the official’s discretionary authority. See Rich v.

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."

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.

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.

Moore v. Schlesinger

150 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 21, 2001

Thus, while absolute immunity may be accorded under limited circumstances, qualified immunity remains the norm for executive officers who seek immunity from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct. See Harlow v. … to qualified immunity).

McShea v. School Board

58 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 3, 2014

are entitled to qualified immunity. … In response, McShea recites an extensive amount of case law on qualified immunity and argues, in a single sentence, that because the burden of proving qualified immunity rests with Defendants, this affirmative defense is

Harris v. DIST. BD. TRUSTEES OF POLK COMMUNITY COLLEGE

9 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 18, 1998

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's ruling on the law enforcement officer defendants, saying that they were not entitled to qualified immunity because "their conduct violated clearly established law … The Circuit Court of Appeals granted qualified immunity to the university officials in Andre because the plaintiff did not allege that they violated any clearly established law. Id. at 6.

M.S. ex rel. Soltys v. Seminole County School Board

636 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 10, 2009

duties have the benefit of qualified immunity when sued in their individual capacities so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights known to a reasonable person. … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established The right to be free from excessive and arbitrary corporal punishment in a school context is clearly established under the precedent of the U.S.

Teed v. Everest Campus East, LLC, Bay Guard Pool Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 8, 2026

Teed argues, as he did below, that Everest does not qualify for immunity under section 440.10(1)(e). We agree. … But the unambiguous language of section 440.10(1)(e) establishes that Everest cannot be immune from suit unless it was a "subcontractor" 5 working for a "contractor" on the same project

Dykes v. Weinberg

564 F. Supp. 536 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 15, 1983

The Court held that “governmental officials performing discretionary functions” are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … .-, 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), Weinberg is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

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.

Biggins v. FANTASMA PRODS., INC. OF FLORIDA

943 So. 2d 952 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 6, 2006

Furthermore, all of the parties to this arrangement were clearly aware of the interrelated (if not interdependent) work they were to perform at the concert, inasmuch as they had done so together many times in the past. … When another subcontractor on the site needs labor, the subcontractor speaks with the crew chief who then designates qualified employees for the task.

Hill v. United States

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 10, 2023

Hill brings her claims against the United States pursuant to the FTCA’s qualified waiver of sovereign immunity. See Dolan v. U.S. … Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481, 485 (2006) (“The FTCA qualifies its waiver of sovereign immunity for certain categories of claims (13 in all).”).

White v. Fl. Hwy. Patrol, Div. of Fl. Dept. of Hwy.

928 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 10, 1996

Qualified immumty protects officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or Constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … This Circuit established a two-step analysis for applying the Harlow qualified immumty test. Zeigler v. Jackson, 716 F.2d 847, 849 (11th Cir.1983).

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.

In Re Tierney

328 So. 2d 40 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 27, 1976

establish any condition or predicate to such subpoenaing and questioning. … The slight modification on June 30 of the area of refusal did not carry beyond the boundaries already established.