Case law

W.W. Taylor v. Administrator of the Small Business Administration

722 F.2d 105 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 20, 1983

Clearly, then, Romeo’s suit is barred insofar as he seeks injunctive relief in the nature of specific performance. … A suit for breach of this commitment would clearly seem to fall within section 634(b)(1).

Latrina Thomas v. City of Winnfield

539 F. App'x 456 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 28, 2013

of clearly established law.7 Once a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the burden to rebut this defense by establishing genuine issues of fact as to both prongs.8 The plaintiff must offer more than “mere … immunity “merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.”12 In other words, the fact that the abstract right to be free from excessive force is clearly established does not categorically negate qualified

Martin v. Burgess

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 2026

Nevertheless, they argued that they are immune from suit in their official capacities under the Eleventh Amendment and in their individual capacities under the doctrines of judicial immunity, quasi-judicial immunity, qualified … immunity, and state-law official immunity.

King v. Chide

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 1992

Our first inquiry in the examination of a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is whether the Plaintiff has "alleg[ed] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." Siegert v. … Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from liability if a reasonably competent law enforcement agent would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Jackson v.

John Boyd v. Neal B. Biggers, Jr.

31 F.3d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231-33 , 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (“One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily … Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc) (“[A] conspiracy between judge and prosecutor to predetermine the outcome of a judicial proceeding, while clearly improper, nevertheless does not pierce the immunity extended

Francisco Kamani v. Port of Houston Authority

702 F.2d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 1983

Clearly, the State of Texas should properly have contemplated that when it consented to being sued for claims in tort some of those claims would be in admiralty. … As such it is binding since it is in terms a limit on the waiver of sovereign immunity.

Peré Ex Rel. Peré v. Nuovo Pignone, Inc.

150 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1998

Grossman, 991 F.2d 1376 (8th Cir. 1993) holds that whether an entity qualifies as a foreign sovereign is determined at the time the litigated event occurred. … Once that party makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to raise the exceptions to sovereign immunity and to assert facts that would establish these exceptions.

Howard Barnwell, Jr., a Minor, by Next Friend, Patricia Barnwell v. Sam L. Cordle, Administrator of the Estate of Howard Barnwell, Sr., Deceased

438 F.2d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 13, 1971

The immunity of parents from liability for torts committed against their children is clearly not absolute in Georgia. In the leading Georgia case of Bul-loch v. … established by Stapleton, supra, that the immunity is personal to the parent and may not be relied on by another as a shield to avoid liability.

Veritext Corporation v. Paul Bonin

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2018

However, this immunity is not absolute. … For the Board to enjoy Parker immunity under the Sherman Act, it must satisfy “two requirements: first that ‘the challenged restraint . . . be one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy,’ and second

Coon v. Ledbetter

780 F.2d 1158 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 16, 1986

The doctrine of qualified, or “good faith,” immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when his conduct, though it may technically be illegal, does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Use of excessive force in making an arrest violates clearly established rights, and the doctrine of qualified immunity therefore does not shield an officer who uses excessive force.

Freeman v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

369 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 7, 2004

Freeman’s Retaliation Claim Freeman challenges the dismissal of his retaliatory transfer claim on qualified immunity grounds. … , establish that the officers’ conduct violated a constitutional right; second, if a violation of a constitutional right occurred, whether the right was “clearly established” at that time.

Pinkerton v. Spellings

529 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 13, 2007

The Court has held that Congress waived the government’s sovereign immunity from monetary remedies for claims brought under § 501, while immunity is not waived for § 504 claims. Lane v. … “because of” when describing the discrimination that it proscribes, because the “text undeniably” means to “prohibit[] discrimination because of the exercise of FMLA rights,” the regulations promulgated under the FMLA “clearly

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. City of El Paso

243 F.3d 936 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 19, 2001

Appellant argues that the district court erred by applying the arm-of-the-state analysis established in Clark because our prior decisions hold Appellant as an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Our decisions clearly forbid such a result. See, e.g., Jacintoport, 762 F.2d at 439- 40.

Anderson v. Pasadena ISD

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 5, 1999

immunity and requested the district court to prohibit discovery until the qualified immunity claim was resolved. … The individual defendants again filed for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal claiming qualified immunity.

Villafranca v. United States

587 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 2009

Olson, 546 U.S. 43 , 126 S.Ct. 510 , 163 L.Ed.2d 306 (2005). 4 In Olson , the Supreme Court held that state-defined immunity (or waiver of immunity) cannot be applied to determine whether the Government has waived immunity … We find the Garza court’s distinction between immunities and privileges persuasive.

Mrs. Jimmie Lue Williams v. Douglas E. Kelley and Floyd Carlton McIntyre

624 F.2d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 22, 1980

This question often is resolved under the banner of qualified official immunity, which looks principally to the actors’ good faith. See, e.g., Procunier v. … The officers’ efforts at that point were clearly made in order to protect their own safety, as well as that of Williams and the third floor in general. .

Teddy Davis v. Billy Pierce

826 F.3d 258 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 14, 2016

First Amendment Claim The district court determined that Defendant Morris was entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs had not established that their First Amendment rights to exercise their religion had been … clearly overcoming the Qualified Immunity Analysis [sic].”

Carlos Poree v. Kandy Collins

866 F.3d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 28, 2017

17 Instead of analyzing this issue, the, majority reverts to the clearly established law question—a question it already answered—to conclude that the Supreme Court has not clearly established that what the state court did … was incorrect. 18 Bring *254 ing to mind the Supreme Court’s recent statements on “clearly established law” in the qualified immunity context, 19 the majority answers whether the state court’s analysis was clearly established

Spuler v. Pickar

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 1992

Notwithstanding, court challenges associated with denial of tenure persist; and the affirmative qualified immunity defense rests on whether public officials have violated a clearly-established right. … The defendants did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights and were thus entitled to qualified immunity. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED in all respects.

Katie Ruth Anderson v. J. J. Nosser, James Bradley v. J. J. Nosser

438 F.2d 183 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 27, 1971

But the Mississippi courts clearly hold that the theoretical availability of a bonding procedure does not immunize the incarceration of those arrested who either cannot make bond immediately or who were not permitted to do … The statutes clearly require that the officers of the police force of Kansas City be selected by the chief of police from a list of those who have qualified pursuant to an examination, and the chief of police is required