Case law

Jeff Hatcher v. City of Grand Prairie

676 F. App'x 238 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 19, 2017

a right is clearly established “in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” 11 Although a right may be clearly established without “a case directly on point, . . . existing precedent … or near-analogous” to the facts in the case under consideration to suffice as clearly established law. 24 We must nevertheless remain cognizant that “[t]he central concept [of qualified immunity] is that of fair warning:

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.

Johnson v. Hospital Corp. of America

95 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 23, 1996

In the present suit, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred by finding that Rea and Johnson failed to establish a conspiracy to close the ECU. … The district court quite clearly based its denial of -26- immunity on its conclusion that the Hospital, Martin, Linton and Haberer acted out of spite toward Rea and Johnson.

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.

In re Corrugated Container Anti-Trust Litigation

620 F.2d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 1980

so closely related in subject matter and so clearly derived from the immunized testimony as to be thoroughly tainted and inadmissible against him in any conceivable future prosecution. … The district court found, however, that no new grant of immunity was necessary since the deposition testimony of Franey and Hopkins would be “clearly and thoroughly derived from the immunized testimony previously given” and

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.

Quinn v. Roach

326 F. App'x 280 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 4, 2009

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … If the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, then qualified immunity is not applicable.

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].”

Sanders-Burns v. City of Plano

578 F.3d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 7, 2009

The court noted, however, that McDougall did not raise the defenses of good faith or qualified immunity in his answer and did not indicate an awareness that he was being sued in his individual capacity. Id. at 1317-18. … First, the answer to the complaint filed by the Defendants asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity — a defense against an individual capacity lawsuit.

Mark Cowart v. Erwin

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 22, 2016

Erwin nevertheless claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shelters state officials from liability only “to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” 29 “A public official is entitled to qualified

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. .

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.

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.

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

Robert Glen Hamill v. Robert L. Wright

870 F.2d 1032 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 26, 1989

We have no cause to enjoin future state proceedings in which no federal rights are in jeopardy. 1 Qualified Immunity of Sheriff Carpenter Hamill seeks money damages from Sheriff Carpenter on the ground that Carpenter illegally … Sheriffs enjoy qualified immunity from damages for official actions taken in good faith. Turner v.

Travis Alton, Travis Alton v. Texas A&m University, Thomas Darling Malon Southerland Robert H. Dalton M.T. "Ted" Hopgood, Major General

168 F.3d 196 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 1999

HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment to officials of Texas A & M University, based on qualified immunity to a claim for money damages for a deprivation of constitutional rights, … The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant officials on qualified-immunity grounds. This ruling alone is before this court.

Ernest M. Serio v. Members of Louisiana State Board of Pardons, Howard Marsellus, Jr.

821 F.2d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 1987

The district court correctly ruled, however, that the defendants enjoyed absolute immunity from § 1983 damages. … Saxner 5 it relied on precedent consistent with Hilliard to distinguish the absolute immunity afforded by lower courts to state parole board members from the qualified immunity that the Cleavinger decision affords to members

Edgar Freimanis v. Sea-Land Service, Inc. And Department of Highways of the State of Louisiana

654 F.2d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 4, 1981

Eleventh Amendment Immunity Appellant does not dispute established law that, in the absence of waiver or congressional abrogation of its immunity, a state is immune from suits brought in federal court by her own citizens, … Indeed, Louisiana has clearly expressed its intention to preserve its immunity. La.Rev.Stat.Ann.

John E. Romeo and Beverly C. Romeo v. United States of America

462 F.2d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 7, 1972

Clearly, then, Romeo’s suit is barred insofar as he seeks injunctive relief in the nature of specific performance. 4 But the Congress has consented to his claim for monetary damages. 5 On the merits, Romeo’s claim for money … The SBA discovered that the Mermaid Club had been operated, at least in part, as a gambling establishment.

Carol Rae Cooper Foulds v. Texas Tech University

171 F.3d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 1, 1999

Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 788 n.5 (1991) (“Because we find that § 1362 does not enable tribes to overcome Alaska’s sovereign immunity, we express no view on whether these respondents qualify as “tribes” within … Foulds does not qualify.