Case law

Bennett v. St. Vincent's Medical Center, Inc.

71 So. 3d 828 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jul 7, 2011

No party in this case contends that the statute provides immunity from suit to physicians practicing obstetrics for alleged malpractice occurring during labor and delivery; rather, the immunity is narrowly circumscribed by … his conclusions and that their expert was more qualified to render an opinion regarding the timing of the injury.

RMS Titanic, Inc. v. French Republic (In re RMS Titanic, Inc.)

569 B.R. 825 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 25, 2017

In fact, it is a well-established principle of statutory construction that Congress may abrogate a sovereign’s immunity by enacting a statute that clearly establishes the abrogation. State of Florida v. … Within its text, the document does not expressly award unconditional title of the Artifacts to the Debtor’s predecessor, and the record does not clearly evidence the legal effect of the document or the nature of the interest

Osterback v. Kemp

300 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Oct 15, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants have argued their entitlement to qualified immunity. Doc. 82, p. 16. … clear to overcome qualified immunity defense).

Tribune Co. v. Huffstetler

11 Fla. L. Weekly 246 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 5, 1986

Tunstall's source would clearly be the proper party to challenge section 112.317(6) should that source ever be charged under the statute. … Court correctly declines to reach the question of the statute's possible unconstitutionality but reaches a similar result by weighing the interest sought to be protected by the statute against the reporter's interest in immunity

Hyman v. Iowa State Bank (In Re Health Care Products, Inc.)

159 B.R. 332 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 24, 1993

from suit unless such immunity is waived. … Writing for the majority in Nordic Village, Justice Scalia explained that § 106(c) “waives sovereign immunity, [although] it fails to establish unambiguously that the waiver extends to monetary claims.”

Nettleman v. Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees

228 F. Supp. 3d 1303 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 6, 2017

There is no dispute that FAU is an “arm of the state” that would otherwise qualify for sovereign immunity. … I must conclude, in turn, that Nettleman has not established a basis for CRCA to abrogate FAU’s sovereign immunity in this instance. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that The Florida Atlantic University Board of

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports · Apr 4, 2000

A county may not agree to indemnify another party to a contract or alter the state's waiver of sovereign immunity such that the county's liability may be extended beyond the limits established in section 768.28 , Florida … Question Four As discussed above, the county may not agree to alter the state's waiver of sovereign immunity and extend the county's liability beyond the limits established in section 768.28 , Florida Statutes.

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports · Jun 29, 2000

The Court determined that the statutory authorization for municipalities to impose the utility tax did not constitute a waiver of the well-established immunity of state or county government from taxation by a municipality … Noting that "[t]he State's immunity from taxation is so well established in Florida's jurisprudence that little elaboration is needed here," the Court concluded that the state and the county were immune from the public service

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Oy Wartsila AB

159 B.R. 984 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 19, 1993

As mentioned above, the issue of whether the Finnish Companies Act requires an independent audit of the value of the assets transferred to a subsidiary where the subscription of shares is qualified (i.e., “in kind,” as opposed … The Court of Appeals observed that the claim in Vermeulen clearly fell within the “commercial activity” exception to sovereign immunity, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff sought to recover for her personal injuries

CHAMBERS v. BUTLER

District Court, N.D. Florida · Oct 21, 2024

Thus, all that remains is the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the constitutional right was clearly established when the incident occurred. … And once it is determined that “the use of force is not entitled to qualified immunity and other officers could have intervened but did not, the Court does not conduct a separate clearly established analysis pertaining

Slaughter v. State ex rel. Harrell

245 So. 2d 126 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 12, 1971

It is available to enforce a legal right that has already been clearly established, but not to establish a legal right. … Since he elected the remedy, he is bound by the narrow relief offered therein under long established legal principles.

Williams v. Gaffin Industrial Services, Inc.

88 So. 3d 1027 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 25, 2012

(“The plaintiffs complaint does not clearly show the applicability of [election of remedies] defense. … .”); see also Peak, 57 So.3d at 999 (reversing dismissal based on affirmative defense of sovereign immunity because the complaint did not conclusively establish its applicability).

Watchorn Ex Rel. Christenson v. Town of Davie

795 F. Supp. 1112 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 7, 1992

The officials raised the defense of qualified immunity. … The suggestion that those jury instructions did not mention nominal damages is false, as a review of the record (DE 23 at 16; DE 37 at 19) clearly establishes. 7 .Query whether WATCHORN intentionally avoided highlighting

State Ex Rel. Jones v. Wiseheart

245 So. 2d 849 · Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 11, 1971

Clearly, Section 2 of Article V contains no express prohibition against the enactment in question; nor do we think it can be interpreted as impliedly prohibiting such legislative action. … temporary assignments of justices and judges for judicial service it was intended to exclude all other officials and bodies from the exercise of this power, the end result would be that the circuit judges of this state are immunized

Walker

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 9, 2026

“Generally speaking, it is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the ‘complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’” Corbitt v. … A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional

Jacobs v. BD. OF REGENTS, ETC.

473 F. Supp. 663 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 10, 1979

The complaint clearly alleges that the “unidentified” defendants were aware of the plaintiff’s charge to the E.E. … The assertion of the defendants must therefore be that incorporation confers on corporate employees an immunity from liability under § 1985(3).

James

District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 3, 2026

Qualified Immunity Government officials sued in their individual capacities enjoy qualified immunity “where their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory … established” prong of qualified immunity.

Laughridge

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 4, 2026

Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588, 597–98 (1998) (stating a trial court must exercise discretion when deciding whether to allow discovery after the defense of qualified immunity is raised and noting qualified immunity … in a footnote to this burden – and that the law regarding First Amendment retaliation as it relates to the facts of this case was clearly established as of the time of the events in question.

Ago

Florida Attorney General Reports · May 26, 1993

The Court determined that the statutory authorization for municipalities to impose the utility tax did not constitute a waiver of the well-established immunity of state or county government from taxation by a municipality … implementing statute constitutes a waiver of the immunity.

Magre v. Charles

729 So. 2d 440 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 5, 1999

Charles failed to conclusively establish that his December 27th letter was a statement of pure opinion and hence not actionable. … Since the defamatory statement was protected by a qualified privilege, the burden shifted to Dr. Magre to establish that the privilege was lost through malice or improper purpose. Nodar; Randolph.