Mitchell V. Forsyth

62 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Myers v. Morris
  810 F.2d 1437· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 130×
  The court holds that the prosecutor's actions in handling child abuse cases are protected, despite concerns about the dismissal of charges and the handling of evidence.
• Luisa A. DE Abadia v. Hon. Luis Izquierdo Mora
  792 F.2d 1187· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 97×
  Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they could have reasonably believed the law was not clearly established against their actions at the time of the demotion.
• Kennedy v. City OF Cleveland
  797 F.2d 297· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 94×
  The right to an immediate interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity is conditioned upon timely filing of a notice of appeal and can be waived by noncompliance with reasonable temporal limitations set by the district court.
• POE v. Donnie Haydon
  853 F.2d 418· 6th Cir.· 1988-07-28 ·cited 61×
• Kirchoff v. Flynn
  786 F.2d 320· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-17 ·cited 61×
  The dissenting judge argues that the district court's fee award calculation, based on a contingent fee contract reflecting market value, was reasonable and that the majority failed to provide adequate guidance.
• Juarbe-Angueira v. Arias
  831 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the defendant is immune from a Section 1983 damages action because the plaintiff's discharge did not violate clearly established law.
• Commuter Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth.
  801 F.2d 1286· 11th Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 48×
  The denial of a summary judgment motion based on immunity is an immediately appealable collateral order, and the Authority is immune from antitrust claims under the state action doctrine.
• Pacheco v. Gonzalez
  809 F.2d 125· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because it was clearly established that transitory employees are protected from politically motivated non-renewal, but they were entitled to qualified immunity on the due process c
• ENG v. Coughlin
  858 F.2d 889· 2d Cir.· 1988-10-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the denial of qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity claims are immediately appealable interlocutory orders. It affirmed summary judgment for Milligan, finding no clearly established constitutional violation, but remanded for the district court to
• Elliott v. Thomas
  937 F.2d 338· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-15 ·cited 34×
  A defendant's denial of wrongdoing is not a collateral issue and thus not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine; qualified immunity protects officials from trial when the law was not clearly established.
• Buckley v. Fitzsimmons
  919 F.2d 1230· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-05 ·cited 30×
  The court should not grant absolute immunity to a prosecutor for statements made at a press conference that allegedly create prejudicial pretrial publicity.
• Mahoney v. Hankin
  844 F.2d 64· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-12 ·cited 24×
  The denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision only to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, not fact.
• Tarantino v. B.R. Baker, Jr.
  825 F.2d 772· 4th Cir.· 1987-08-10 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity because the Fourth Amendment principles he allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of his actions.
• Prisco v. United States
  851 F.2d 93· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 22×
  Denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is not immediately appealable when prospective relief claims remain pending against the official. However, if an official is only sued for damages, the denial of their qualified immunity motion is appealable.
• LEE v. Mihalich
  847 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 21×
  The investigators are entitled to qualified immunity because the governing law regarding the statute of limitations was unclear at the time of their actions, and they relied on the advice of counsel.
• Brown v. Detective Felix Grabowski
  922 F.2d 1097· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of qualified immunity on state law claims unless the state law itself provides immunity from suit, and that the victim's civil court access and equal protection claims were not constitutionally cognizable or
• Velasquez v. Senko
  813 F.2d 1509· 9th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying qualified immunity without prejudice is interlocutory and not appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
• Duran v. City OF Douglas
  904 F.2d 1372· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a police officer's stop and arrest of an individual for making obscene gestures and yelling profanities, which constituted protected speech, was unlawful and violated clearly established constitutional rights, thus denying qualified immunity. The court also fo
• Austin v. Hamilton
  945 F.2d 1155· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that disputed material facts regarding the alleged excessive force and prolonged detention precluded summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and affirmed the district court's denial.
• Bartholomew J. Lawson and Nancy L. Lester v. Abrams
  863 F.2d 260· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appeal from the district court's order granting leave to amend the complaint and denying a motion to dismiss based on absolute immunity was premature and dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
• Hensley v. Wilson
  850 F.2d 269· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-20 ·cited 18×
  Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages claims because the law regarding independent assessment of confidential informant reliability was not clearly established at the time of the disciplinary hearings. However, injunctive relief is appropriate where dis
• Young v. Grady B. Lynch
  846 F.2d 960· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity even when the plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, and that the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity from damages.
• Franklyn H. Craft v. Wipf
  810 F.2d 170· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from a district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, even if the district court failed to rule on the immunity issue itself. The case is remanded for the district court
• Sourbeer v. Robinson
  791 F.2d 1094· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding the due process rights of unsentenced prisoners in administrative segregation was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.
• Libby v. Marshall
  833 F.2d 402· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 16×
  The denial of a motion to dismiss based on the Eleventh Amendment is not an immediately appealable collateral order because the state's interest in sovereign immunity can be vindicated on appeal from a final judgment.
• Zayas-Rodriguez v. Dario Hernandez
  830 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the position of Special Assistant II requires political affiliation for effective performance, but other positions do not.
• Hynson v. The City OF Chester & Lastowka
  827 F.2d 932· 3d Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 16×
  A municipal corporation cannot assert qualified immunity, but an individual official may if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights.
• Gooden v. Howard Cnty.
  954 F.2d 960· 4th Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the majority opinion improperly granted summary judgment by skewing summary judgment doctrine to favor the qualified immunity defense, failing to properly assess genuine issues of material fact.
• Duckett v. The City OF Cedar Park
  950 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that police officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions in arresting and detaining an individual based on a facially valid warrant, despite conflicting information about its withdrawal, were objectively reasonable.
• Anny Newman v. Burgin
  930 F.2d 955· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the University provided Professor Newman with sufficient due process, and therefore affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on her federal claims.
• Hurlman v. Rice
  927 F.2d 74· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 14×
  The denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is not immediately appealable if it turns on disputed issues of fact.
• Donald W. Hannon, M.D. v. Turnage
  892 F.2d 653· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Veteran's Administration (VA) cannot deny a pre-termination hearing to an employee based on its own subsequent determination that the appointment was in violation of VA regulations, as Congress mandated such determinations be made at a pre-termination hear
• Garrett Brock Trapnell v. Ralston
  819 F.2d 182· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 14×
  Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages claims if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
• C. James Eddleman also known as Jim Eddleman v. United States Dep't OF Labor
  923 F.2d 782· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an order applying the automatic stay to a governmental action to enforce its police or regulatory power is an appealable final order, and that the Department of Labor's administrative action to enforce the Service Contract Act was exempt from the automatic sta
• Ryan v. Burlington Cnty.
  889 F.2d 1286· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-21 ·cited 10×
  The Board members are not entitled to absolute immunity because they were acting in a managerial capacity, not a legislative one, when administering the jail. They are also not entitled to qualified immunity because the rights Ryan alleged were violated were clearly established a
• Clark v. Link
  855 F.2d 156· 4th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 10×
  A Section 1983 claim cannot be based solely on a violation of state law; a federal right must be implicated. The deputies are entitled to qualified immunity because no federal right was violated.
• Daniel P. and Eunice A. LeCLAIR v. Hart
  800 F.2d 692· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the IRS agents' verbatim copying of financial documents outside the scope of a search warrant constituted a seizure under clearly established Fourth Amendment law, thus they were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.
• Slattery v. Rizzo
  939 F.2d 213· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-25 ·cited 9×
  Qualified immunity is available in excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment, and under the undisputed facts, a reasonable officer could have believed the suspect posed a deadly threat, entitling the officer to immunity.
• Lovell v. The ONE Bancorp
  878 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 8×
  A private party defendant is not entitled to an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a qualified immunity claim.
• ACT UP!/Portland v. Kernon Bagley
  988 F.2d 868· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the decision in Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, which declared the second prong of the qualified immunity test a question of law for the court, repudiates settled law and creates unworkable procedural issues.
• Napolitano v. Flynn
  949 F.2d 617· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on state law claims because their actions did not violate clearly established rights, and federal claims must be dismissed due to insufficient allegations.
• Valiente v. Hon. Ramon Luis Rivera
  966 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity was not untimely filed, and the defendant mayor is entitled to qualified immunity from damages liability for personnel actions short of discharge.
• Harris v. Dist. OF Columbia
  932 F.2d 10· D.C. Cir.· 1991-05-10 ·cited 6×
  Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established constitutional right to medical care for someone taken into custody for their own welfare rather than for law enforcement purposes.
• Henry v. Perry
  866 F.2d 657· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 6×
  The denial of a qualified immunity claim based on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant's conduct is immediately appealable.
• Snyder v. Kurvers
  767 F.2d 489· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the executive secretary of the Board on Judicial Standards was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff's allegations did not establish a violation of clearly established constitutional rights to privacy.
• Denno Ex Rel. Denno v. Sch. Bd. of Volusia Cnty.
  959 F. Supp. 1481· M.D. Fla.· 1997-02-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while a heightened pleading standard does not apply to § 1983 claims against local governments, it does apply to claims against individual officials in their individual capacities, and that the plaintiff failed to allege a clearly established constitutional ri
• Decker v. IHC Hosps., Inc.
  982 F.2d 433· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that neither the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) nor the Utah Medical Practice Act (Utah MPA) provides immunity from suit, and therefore, the district court's denial of the defendants' motions to dismiss based on these statutes is not immediately appeal
• Harrell v. United States
  875 F.2d 828· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-14 ·cited 4×
  The denial of qualified immunity to a government official is immediately appealable, and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did not violate clearly established law or were discretionary.
• Kennedy v. Moe LeFEBVRE
  847 F.2d 482· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to reargue a previously denied motion for summary judgment, based on intervening case law, is an appealable order. The court further held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.
• Sinclair v. Schriber
  834 F.2d 103· 6th Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 4×
  An order denying a motion for summary judgment without prejudice, which allows for further discovery, is not a final decision and therefore not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.