Case law

Board of Regents of State v. Snyder

826 So. 2d 382 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 19, 2002

Qualified immunity protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability and suit for civil damages *390 unless their conduct violates clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights. … Thus, qualified immunity in this case hinges upon whether Mr. Snyder's First Amendment right was clearly established.

City of Hialeah v. Fernandez

661 So. 2d 335 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Sep 27, 1995

[FN3] Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights" allegedly violated were "clearly established." … [The officer] is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the amount of force used outside the restaurant was unlawful. Post, 7 F.3d at 1559-60 (citations omitted).

Sherrod v. SCHOOL BD. OF PALM BEACH COUNTY

703 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 18, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity operates to ensure that “before they are subjected to suit, [public] officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful.” Hope v. … Thus, qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Junior v. Reed

693 So. 2d 586 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 20, 1997

The trial court should have sustained Commissioner Junior's claim of qualified immunity, however, because the conduct forming the basis of the complaint by the Reeds does not amount to a violation of a clearly established … To qualify as a "clearly established" right as that phrase is used in Harlow v.

Gentile v. Bauder

718 So. 2d 781 · Supreme Court of Florida · Sep 24, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … probable cause under clearly established precedent.

Stephens v. Geoghegan

702 So. 2d 517 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 17, 1997

If the public official's conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, the official is immune. Here, there can be no question that the defendants satisfied their initial burden. … Because Stephens, Upman and Worlds did not violate Geoghegan's clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, as delineated in Loudermill , they are entitled to qualified immunity from his federal civil rights claim

Shabazz v. Dixon

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 27, 2019

Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012)(“[c]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often ore difficult … For a right to be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

Tucker v. Resha

610 So. 2d 460 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 30, 1992

Tucker asserted a claim of qualified immunity, which shields from civil liability those governmental officials performing discretionary functions, to the extent "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The "objective reasonableness of an official's conduct" relating to the clearly established law is the proper standard, for "[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably

Town of Southwest Ranches v. Kalam

980 So. 2d 1121 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 12, 2008

a clearly established right). … As Kalam’s complaint fails to show that the town officials’ conduct violated his rights in light of clearly established law, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Grix v. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

821 So. 2d 315 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 22, 2002

The court also found that qualified immunity shielded the officer from. liability under section 1983 because he did not violate a clearly established law concerning proper.net measurements when stopping and detaining appellant … Therefore, Millender did not “clearly establish” the method of measuring such nets.

Brown v. Jenne

122 So. 3d 881 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 1, 2012

Qualified Immunity Standard “ ‘Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established … As to the second determination for qualified immunity, the Thompson court found that the excessiveness of the force was clearly established at the time of the incident, which in Thompson occurred in 1998.

Florida Highway Patrol, a division etc. v. Lashonta Renea Jackson, as Per. Rep. etc.

238 So. 3d 430 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 23, 2018

Reeves, 80 F.3d 1101, 1104 (6th Cir. 1996) (“Hunter established that the determination of whether qualified immunity applies to an officer’s judgment as to probable cause is one for the court, not the jury, to make”); Ansley … This appears to be the analysis undertaken by Judge Rothenberg in Pozos when she concluded that the record “clearly established” the legal question of sovereign immunity. Pozos, 42 Fla. L.

Brescher v. Pirez

696 So. 2d 370 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 30, 1997

questionable conduct violated clearly established law. … the plaintiff's rights in light of clearly established law.

Dicks Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Jenne

740 So. 2d 576 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 21, 1999

Initially, the trial court denied the motion, finding that Deputy Biernacki had "failed to establish his entitlement to qualified immunity as a matter of law, particularly in light of the court's prior ruling that the arrest … decision on the qualified immunity issue; and the record before this court does not support a finding that the prior rulings were clearly erroneous.

Walsingham v. Dockery

671 So. 2d 166 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 21, 1996

concerned whether certain given facts showed a violation of clearly established law. … Doe, 38 F.3d 1559, 1563 (11th Cir.1994) ("the issue of a government official's qualified immunity from suit presents a question of law"). The test for qualified immunity was established in Harlow v.

Jones v. Kirkland

696 So. 2d 1249 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 25, 1997

of the facts alleged, defendant's actions violate clearly established law — a `purely legal question.'" … Clearly, under the most favorable version of the facts alleged, appellees' actions objectively violated clearly established law. Accordingly, dismissal of appellant's complaint cannot be supported by qualified immunity.

Thompson v. Douds

852 So. 2d 299 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 18, 2003

Therefore, the trial court found that Thompson had failed to prove that the law was "clearly established." … Therefore, the autopsy report was insufficient to establish a fact question that would defeat summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. Id.

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

37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 691 · Supreme Court of Florida · Nov 15, 2012

There is an important difference between a departure from the essential requirements of law where there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law and a case that involves an issue of law where the law … Without such controlling precedent, we cannot conclude that either court violated a ‘clearly established principle of law.’ ” (quoting Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So.2d 979, 982-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997))).

Paylan v. Dirks

228 So. 3d 679 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 11, 2017

Stat. (2010), and the face of her complaint does not otherwise conclusively establish that the ASAs are entitled either to sovereign immunity or to qualified immunity. See Peak v. … of the qualified immunity defense; that is, whether, under the most favorable version of facts alleged, the defendant's action violated clearly established law."); Town of Southwest Ranches v.

Goetz v. Noble

652 So. 2d 1203 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 29, 1995

Qualified immunity affords government officials performing discretionary functions protection from liability under section 1983 where their conduct does not violate what reasonable people would recognize as a clearly established … Harlow 's "clearly established" standard demands that a bright line be crossed.