Case law

Bertha Vasquez v. H. W. Snow and Bill Cooper

616 F.2d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 2, 1980

We now turn to the trial court’s alternative holding that Cooper enjoyed qualified official immunity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). … “Reasonableness” in this context turns on whether the right infringed was “clearly established,” such that Cooper should both have known of it and realized that his conduct “violated the constitutional norm.”

Norman Jett v. Dallas Independent School District

837 F.2d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 5, 1988

In the first place, some of the same reasons are clearly applicable. … But the Court ruled that this history did not justify giving municipalities qualified immunity under section 1983, stating: “[T]he municipality’s ‘governmental’ immunity is obviously abrogated by the sovereign’s enactment

Murray v. Earle

405 F.3d 278 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 2005

Clearly Established Law 26 To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish that the right an official is alleged to have violated was "clearly established," i.e., sufficiently clearly defined that "a … according to clearly established law, we also determine, by conducting the analogous state law inquiry under Texas state law, 66 that immunity bars LaCresha's civil conspiracy claim.

James A. Paynes v. Dan Dee Lee

377 F.2d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 2, 1967

It is suggested that Section 1985(3) affords no remedy to a person not qualified to vote, that is one who has not qualified by having registered. There is no merit in such a contention. … that Federal jurisdiction might not be invoked by Paynes to recover damages for the injury he asserts was inflicted upon him by Lee under some one or more of other Federal statutes, we conclude that such jurisdiction is clearly

Grant v. LeBlanc

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 1, 2022

light of clearly-established law. … In sum, the first qualified-immunity prong is not satisfied. Therefore, we need not consider the second (whether the Secretary acted objectively unreasonable in the light of clearly-established law).

Raymond Muzquiz v. City of San Antonio

520 F.2d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 8, 1975

Moreover, nothing could more clearly demonstrate the fact that the Supreme Court intended merely to construe the language of § 1983 as not comprehending a municipality rather than granting any sort of blanket immunity to … County of Alameda clearly puts that matter to rest. Moreover, a clear answer to those who contend that Edelman v.

Sims v. Apfel

238 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 11, 2001

qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

United States v. Eddie Wayne Roberson

872 F.2d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 24, 1989

The Commission has established a two-step process for selecting a sentence. … State Immunity and Defendant’s Due Process Rights.

Cousin v. Small

325 F.3d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 27, 2003

qualified immunity. … good faith pleads that it is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity.” Beck v. Tex. Bd. of A.

Rosie Lee Pegues, Cross-Appellants v. Mississippi State Employment Service, Cross-Appellees

899 F.2d 1449 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 7, 1990

, but it clearly states that the affirmative relief a court may order is not limited to back pay. … The parties also agreed on the expectation that if MSES referred enough qualified applicants for a job opening, all of the vacancies would be filled.

United States v. Arlan Lamar Robinson

700 F.2d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 28, 1983

Robinson’s attorney questioned some of the government’s witnesses concerning promises of immunity offered for their testimony, establishing that some witnesses received, or understood that they were to receive, informal immunity … Guerrero, 650 F.2d 728 (5th Cir.1981) (evidence clearly inadmissible under Beechum).

Alexander v. Arceneaux

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 13, 2026

The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity as to Alexander’s Fourth Amendment claim. … immunity, Alexander must show (1) that they “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Ashley v. Clay County

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2025

Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1015 (5th Cir. 1994) (“The question of qualified immunity must be addressed as a threshold issue because this issue determines a defendant’s immunity from suit.”). … The state official asserted defenses of absolute and qualified immunity. Id. at 1017.

Peggy James and Wylie C. Yelverton v. George C. Wallace, Individually and as Governor of the State of Alabama, and His Successors in Office

533 F.2d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 1976

We similarly express no opinion on the question of whether immunity, qualified or otherwise, exists for state executive officials in cases like this one. Cf. Scheuer v. … This stipulation, however, admits only that there are some number of Alabama blacks qualified for each post; it does not establish that the percentage of Alabamans qualified for each post who are black is the same as the

Lindelo M. Dzana v. Charles C. Foti, Jr.

829 F.2d 558 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 1987

Finally, we must determine whether Foti, as sheriff, and the other defendants, as prison officials, are eligible for qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … Under these circumstanc *563 es the defendant officials find no shelter behind qualified immunity. III.

Stefanoff v. Hays County, Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 1998

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time the challenged action occurred, the federal law proscribing it was clearly established not only as an abstract matter but also in a more particularized … In order to overcome Hastings’s claim of qualified immunity, Stefanoff must specifically allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Seigert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 233 (1991).

Izen v. Catalina

398 F.3d 363 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 24, 2004

Qualified Immunity The district court offered alternative reasons for holding that Catalina is entitled to qualified immunity. … The second prong of qualified immunity analysis requires us to determine whether the agent's conduct violated clearly established federal law. Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350.

Alicia Correa v. Steve Fischer, and Willacy County

982 F.2d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 1993

In analyzing the merits of Fischer’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity we must first determine whether the plaintiffs have sufficiently established a violation of a constitutional right. … If a constitutional violation is established, we must determine whether the right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. Siegert v. Gilley, —U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991).

Brandy Hamilton v. Nathaniel Turner

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 17, 2017

Kindred moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the incident, bystander liability was not clearly established in the Fifth Circuit in cases not involving excessive … DISCUSSION We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of qualified immunity “only to the extent that the appeal concerns the purely legal question whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Jonathan Davidson v. City of Stafford, Texas, et a

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … On the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, recent Supreme Court decisions addressing claims for excessive force have “reiterate[d] the longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law’ should not be defined