Case law

Christine Hunter and Barbara Jean Mims v. George A. Clardy, Kenneth F. Copeland

558 F.2d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 1977

Hunter’s activities clearly were prompted by the entrance to [sic] her house of a large number of unu-niformed persons who might have been masquerading as policemen for all she knew, and anyone in the professional position … If he so believed in good faith, he enjoys a qualified immunity from § 1983 liability.

Queenie Mitchell v. Deborah Carlson and United States of America, Queenie Mitchell v. Deborah Carlson, Individually, in Re United States of America and Deborah Carlson

896 F.2d 128 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 15, 1990

In Mitchell, the Supreme Court determined that a government employee's right to appeal as a collateral order extends not only to claims of absolute immunity but also to claims of qualified immunity. … "The entitlement [of qualified immunity] is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial."

Coy U. Spawn, Jr. v. Western Bank--Westheimer, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

989 F.2d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 4, 1993

Finally, the Court in Shaw cited examples of what would qualify as an express waiver of immunity from interest. … In this case, by contrast, no underlying statute clearly authorizes an award of prejudgment interest.

Cantu v. Jones

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 2002

In reviewing a claim of qualified immunity, this Court must determine: “(1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s conduct was … objectively unreasonable in the light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident.”

Jacobs v. NATIONAL DRUG INTELLIGENCE CENTER

548 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 10, 2008

[and] I don’t think they clearly overrule what the Circuit has done [in Johnson]. Transcript of Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment at 4, 8, Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr., No. 5:01-CV-72 (S.D. … Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004) (holding plaintiffs must prove some actual damages to qualify for the Privacy Act’s minimum statutory award).

In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches

696 F.3d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 2012

Bernard plaintiffs’ argument, then, we must determine whether the Corps’s decision to dredge MRGO instead of implementing foreshore protection constitutes flood-control activity qualifying for Section 702c immunity. … Despite these contentions, the court did not clearly err in finding that the Corps was reasonable in relying on the report.

Mary Walker v. Institutional Division Texas Department of Criminal Justice

381 F. App'x 477 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2010

Qualified immunity protects officials from suit if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.2 Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. … Absolute judicial immunity, as well as qualified immunity, refers to protection from suit and not simply the assessment of liability. . . .

Donald W. Barnes v. B. F. Merritt, Jr.

376 F.2d 8 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 1967

We think, reading the complaint as a whole, that it clearly alleges that standards for deciding the qualifications of liquor license holders are totally non-existent. … We quote from the decision: “If it develops that no ascertainable standards have been established by the Board of Aldermen by which an applicant can intelligently seek to qualify for a license, then the court must enjoin

Steadman v. The Texas Rangers

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 1999

Here, the legal principle is the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct under clearly-established law, the qualified immunity doctrine. 6  In an earlier … so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Teresa Baldwin, /Appellant v. Frankie Daniels, Individually and in His Official Capacity

250 F.3d 943 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 17, 2001

immunity and in requiring her to prove that Daniels’ actions were arbitrary and capricious in order to establish her procedural due process claim against him in his official capacity. … Accordingly, we need not address Baldwin’s claims regarding qualified immunity or jury instructions relating to this claim. IV.

Zaffuto v. City of Hammond

308 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2002

immunity. … established at the time of the violation, precluding his qualified immunity defense.

Johnson v. Miller

98 F.4th 580 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 10, 2024

There, he clearly specified two causes of action—First Amendment retaliation and MWPA retaliation. 2  Case: 23-60199 Document: 54-1 Page: 3 Date … Supp. 3d at 370 (permitting the claim to go forward because the plaintiff qualified as a whistleblower under the statute); Usher v. G.A. Carmichael Fam. Health Ctr., 2018 WL 4008017, *3 (S.D.

Palacios Seafood, Inc. v. Piling, Inc., and Matagorda County Navigation District Number One

888 F.2d 1509 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 1, 1989

Rather, this action focuses upon the kinds of damages incident to governmental activity that qualify as compen-sable under the state constitution. … Accordingly, we respect the trial court’s factual *1513 findings unless clearly erroneous. Fed.R. Civ.P. 52(a).

Harper v. Harris County, Tex.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 12, 1994

Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Anderson v. … The examination of a claim of qualified immunity is a two-step process.

Gutierrez v. City of San Antonio

139 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 1998

The officers now bring an interlocutory appeal seeking dismissal or summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … IV 17 Qualified immunity protects officials in the course of performance of their discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a "clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable

Leo Henzel v. Richard Gerstein, Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General

608 F.2d 654 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 1979

Judge Turner was clearly acting within his judicial capacity when he performed the acts that are the subject of this suit. III. … State officials are protected by a qualified immunity from § 1983 damage suits upon a showing that they acted in good *659 faith and without malice. O’Connor v.

K.P. v. LeBlanc

627 F.3d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 2010

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. … That view is unremarkable, as the statute clearly prohibits use of the Fund for abortion claims that are brought under Section 9:2800.12.

Nancy Crowder, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of James Ralston Crowder, Cross-Appellant v. Ken Sinyard, Cross-Appellees. Nancy Crowder, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of James Ralston Crowder v. Ken Sinyard v. Winston P. Crowder

884 F.2d 804 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 21, 1989

Second, the individual defendants argue that the court erred in not holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … We thus come to what we believe is the heart of the qualified immunity issue in this case: Was it clearly unlawful for the defendants to assist in the search for the purpose of identifying, for seizure under the "plain view

Pederson v. Louisiana State University

213 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 27, 2000

Id. at 115 n.2. 6 capacities on the basis of qualified immunity, and also dismissed the remaining § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment claims. … See Appellants’ Brief at 34-35 (“Although the District Court (contrary to Rules 23 and 52) made no factual findings supporting its holding as to numerosity, the trial evidence clearly established the numerosity element

Mitchell v. Advanced HCS

28 F.4th 580 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 10, 2022

The Act clearly states that its willful-misconduct cause of action creates “a standard for liability that is more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.” 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(c)(1)(B) … That argument fails because the relevance of the Act’s immunity provisions is defensive, as is its preemptive effect.