Mitchell V. Forsyth

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

• Gainor v. Rogers
  973 F.2d 1379· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-20 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would grant qualified immunity on unlawful arrest and First Amendment claims and remand the excessive force claim for further consideration.
• Enlow v. Tishomingo Cnty.
  962 F.2d 501· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying Officer Wall's motion for summary judgment based on qualified or absolute immunity, as material fact questions remained regarding the alleged constitutional violations and state tort claims.
• United States v. P.H.E., Inc.
  965 F.2d 848· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-26 ·cited 2×
  The denial of a motion to dismiss a grand jury indictment based on prosecutorial vindictiveness is not immediately appealable under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule.
• Texanita Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Schs.
  947 F.2d 903· 10th Cir.· 1991-10-29 ·cited 2×
  Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff's alleged rights were not clearly established under the relevant state law at the time of the conduct.
• Turney v. Scroggy
  831 F.2d 135· 6th Cir.· 1987-10-16 ·cited 2×
  The court should not grant qualified immunity to defendants Pershing and Scroggy because their actions violated clearly established constitutional rights regarding inmate due process.
• Graham v. Gray
  827 F.2d 679· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-01 ·cited 2×
  The denial of a motion for a protective order from discovery, even when grounded on qualified immunity, is not an immediately appealable "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as such orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion, not solely on issues of law.
• Derick G. Justice v. Town OF Blackwell & Jennie Henkel
  820 F.2d 238· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the denial of qualified immunity to Cronin was appealable, but Henkel's appeal from the denial of her motion to amend was not. Cronin was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established federal or state law.
• Reilly v. The Sch. Dist. of Lee Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-02
  The court held that qualified immunity applies to federal claims against certain individual defendants because the plaintiffs failed to allege a violation of clearly established law, but it does not apply to defendants Carcioppolo and Chappell due to their failure to demonstrate