Case law

Daniel Martinez v. Nueces County, TX

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 12, 2016

A public official will be granted qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the officer’s conduct”). 3  Case: 15-40358 Document: 00513502097 Page: 4 Date Filed

Tarver v. City of Edna

410 F.3d 745 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 25, 2005

reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time the challenged conduct occurred. … Under the second step of qualified immunity analysis, Tarver must establish that Officer Bubela’s conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.

Alejandro Hernandez v. The City of El Paso

397 F. App'x 954 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 20, 2010

Because we conclude that Defendants’ actions did not violate Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, we reverse the denial of their motion for qualified immunity, and remand to the district court for entry … such activity violates clearly established constitutional rights.”

Blackwell v. Barton

34 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 1994

The first inquiry in the examination of a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v. … Qualified Immunity Barton is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct. Pfannstiel, 918 F.2d at 1183.

United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Development

445 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2006

“The [appellant] must clearly and specifically set forth facts sufficient to satisfy these Art. Ill standing requirements. … “It is well-established that one panel of our court will not overturn another absent an intervening precedent by our court sitting en banc or a Supreme Court precedent.” FDIC v.

Tate Smith v. Odessa Junior College District, et a

507 F. App'x 359 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2013

As stated, for our analysis of the second prong of the qualified-immunity test, the objective reasonableness of Davis’ actions must be viewed in the light of then clearly-established law. … Needless to say, the law was not clearly established.

Juanita CAUSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

516 F.2d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 1975

Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P., lays down the “clearly erroneous” test for appellate review of district court findings of fact. … In sum, the court concluded that appellant had failed to establish unlawful discrimination by the requisite evidentiary preponderance.

Michael Cantrell v. City of Murphy

666 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 2012

“[A]n official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.” Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350. … Stated differently, Matthew’s asserted right was not clearly established on October 2, 2007. Because this putative right was not clearly established, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Jerry Reed v. Allison Taylor

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 2, 2019

The district court granted summary judgment to the officials based on qualified immunity, holding that the threat of criminal prosecution wasn’t “other legal process” under clearly established law. Reed appealed. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Joseph Walton, as Next Friend of Christopher Walton, a Minor v. Alma Alexander, Alma Alexander

20 F.3d 1350 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1994

State officials are protected by qualified immunity for alleged constitutional torts if their conduct does not violate clearly established law effective at the time of the alleged tort. Harlow v. … Therefore, the first step in examining a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is to determine whether the plaintiff has “al-leg[ed] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v.

Vojvodich v. Lopez

48 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 1995

State officials are protected by qualified immunity for alleged constitutional torts if their conduct does not violate clearly established law effective at the time of the alleged tort.24 … The second step in the qualified immunity analysis is determining whether the constitutional rights allegedly violated were clearly established at the time the events occurred.

Bruce Joiner v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 27, 2020

Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 195 (1996) (noting the “established practice of construing waivers of sovereign immunity narrowly in favor of the sovereign”). … These recitations are insufficient to establish that further discovery will overcome the discretionary function exception and defeat sovereign immunity.

Carla Blake v. Don Lambert

921 F.3d 215 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2019

The district court denied qualified immunity. … “Once invoked, a plaintiff bears the burden of rebutting qualified immunity by showing two things: (1) that the officials violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established at the

Cherry Knoll, L.L.C. v. HDR Engineering, Incorpora

922 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 2019

In response, Jones moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable

Sreeram v. Louisiana State University Medical Center-Shreveport

188 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 16, 1999

The district court found that the record overwhelmingly established that Dr. Sreeram was not qualified to continue as a third year resident and was therefore unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. … Sreer-am failed to establish a prima facie case of sex and/or national origin discrimination because she failed to establish that she was qualified for the position in question at all relevant times.

Keith Hardesty v. Waterworks District 4 of Ward

621 F. App'x 771 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2015

“[A] defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s misconduct through the lens of the “objective reasonableness”/”clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity analysis … the Board Defendants qualified immunity.

Addington v. Wells

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 6, 2023

On the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis (i.e., whether the right in question was clearly established), the court denied Wells qualified immunity by “conclud[ing] that an inmate’s right to adequate medical … “But, to overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Id.

Sossamon v. Lone Star St Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 17, 2009

As for the individual-capacity claims for damages under the First Amendment, we note that the defendants who Sossamon sued enjoy qualified immunity as government actors.76 Whether Sossamon could establish a violation of the … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 205-06 (1996) (“[T]he qualified immunity defense shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Priest v. Grazier

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 25, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … unlawfulness of the conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Paul Cleveland v. Sid Gautreaux, III

938 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2019

The dispositive question in this step of the qualified-immunity analysis is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ibid. (quoting al- Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742). … Ct. 2042, 2045 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing the Third Circuit for relying on circuit precedent to deny qualified immunity, but “[a]ssuming for the sake of argument that a right can be ‘clearly established’ by