Case law

Davidson v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.

359 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 16, 2005

In response, Defendants raise a claim of qualified immunity. … “The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional

Denmark v. Lee County

931 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 1, 1996

Defendant Schramm seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis of qualified immunity. … This Circuit has adopted a two-pronged analysis for determining objective-reasonableness with regard to a qualified immunity defense. See Courson v.

Blumel v. Mylander

954 F. Supp. 1547 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 23, 1997

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Even if CCA were entitled to raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, its policy, on its face, violated “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Steffen v. United States

952 F. Supp. 779 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 22, 1997

qualified immunity. 8. … Accordingly, the doctrine’s high “clearly established” standard is used to minimize social costs associated with litigation, i.e.

& SC15-2002 Advisory Opinion to The Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions & Advisory Opinion to The Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions (FIS)

Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 17, 2015

(5) Nothing in this section requires the violation of federal law or purports to give immunity under federal law. … Does not immunize violations of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or production of marijuana.

Smith v. United States

896 F. Supp. 1183 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 17, 1995

Qualified Immunity Procknow and Goodwill have urged that they be accorded qualified immunity from suit in this case. … "Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials ... and from liability if their conduct violates no `clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Cropper v. United States

81 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Nov 22, 1948

The evidence in the case clearly established plaintiff's right to recover for the injuries suffered by him, if this court has jurisdiction of the suit. … The evidence also clearly shows that Robbins had deviated from the instructions given him in the morning when he left the Army Base with the staff car.

Heritage Property and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Romanach

224 So. 3d 262 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 12, 2017

Clearly, on this record, we conclude that Heritage failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. See Vorbeck v. … As with any party, Heritage may seek a declaratory judgment as to the existence or nonexistence of “any immunity, power, privilege or right” or of “any fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of such immunity, power

Wenzel v. Bankhead

351 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Dec 14, 2004

Bankhead invokes the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects public officials from personal liability unless they violate clearly established law. … The doctrine of qualified immunity, with its insistence, on “clearly established” law as a prerequisite to personal liability *1326 of public officials, is designed for cases of precisely this type.

Palmer v. Hampton

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 9, 2021

They also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 19-20. … Thus, to defeat qualified immunity with respect to each Defendant, Palmer must show both that the specific Defendant committed a constitutional violation, and that the constitutional right violated was clearly established

Wohl v. City of Hollywood

915 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 13, 1995

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability in their individual capacities “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In addressing Ward’s defense of qualified immunity, the Court applies the following two-step analysis utilized by the Eleventh Circuit: 1.

Signature Pharmacy, Inc. v. Soares

717 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 10, 2010

Qualified immunity also protects officers in the execution of search warrants. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Urchisin v. Hauser

221 So. 2d 752 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 16, 1969

Sullivan, 1964, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S.Ct. 710 , 11 L.Ed.2d 686 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 , the United States Supreme Court has established a new law of libel with constitutional dimensions. … Immunity under the qualified privilege doctrine requires the absence of actual malice. Where malice must be presumed, the claim of qualified privilege is unavailable.

Tobkin v. Jarboe

710 So. 2d 975 · Supreme Court of Florida · May 28, 1998

Florida law." [2] The Commission further explained in its commentary that it recommended a rule providing qualified immunity. … I believe that the public, attorneys, and the grievance process are best served by providing a complainant with qualified rather than absolute immunity from civil liability for defamation.

Dartland v. Metropolitan Dade County

681 F. Supp. 1539 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 10, 1988

Qualified Immunity Pereira must show that at the time he dismissed Dartland, his “conduct did not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … In determining whether the law was clearly established, a court should be careful not to test the rule of law at such a level of generality as to render unavailable the defense of qualified immunity. Anderson v.

In Re Russell

60 B.R. 190 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 9, 1986

Thus, it is clear that the Saltwater property qualified as her homestead and was therefore immune from the Bank’s judgment lien, unless it was not really properly claimed as homestead for other reasons or the Saltwater property … Therefore, clearly absent a showing that she did not intend to establish the Saltwater property as her homestead and that she effectively abandoned the same as her homestead, her exemption claim must be sustained.

Harvey M. Hill v. State

143 So. 3d 981 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 16, 2014

State, concluding that the plain language of 776.032 can be understood as granting immunity to a person who qualifies under either 776.012(1) or 776.013(3) and that the “unlawful activity” exception does not exist under section … It is a well-established presumption that the legislature intends to change the law when it amends a statute. See Mikos v. Ringling Bros.

Vila ex rel. estate of Vila v. Miami-Dade County

65 F. Supp. 3d 1371 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 25, 2014

However, the discretionary actions of police officers such as Officers Kelly and Guerra are immune from liability, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Therefore, Plaintiff must “establish that qualified immunity is not appropriate” by satisfying a two-part inquiry. Id. First; Plaintiff must show that the officers violated Mr. Vila’s constitutional right.

McNayr v. Kelly

184 So. 2d 428 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 23, 1966

If areas of absolute immunity and qualified immunity are to be carved out of the executive branches of government, it should more appropriately — and historically more properly — be done by the legislative branch. [6] Another … with the immunity altogether.

Coletta v. the City of North Bay Village

962 F. Supp. 1486 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 11, 1997

Qualified Immunity as to Counts II and III The individual defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and that, therefore, Counts II and III should be dismissed as … Therefore, the Court proceeds to determine whether the plaintiff has met his burden of alleging that said activities violated clearly established constitutional law, or were done with the objective intent to harm him.