Case law

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Dallas Independent School District

220 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2000

immunity. … Doe I, 153 F.3d at 219 (applying deliberate indifference standard for purposes of 8 § 1983 qualified immunity analysis).

International Truck & Engine Corp. v. Bray

372 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2004

Hence, we cannot deduce that only a Texas manufacturer qualifies for the exception. … In a cursory reference at the beginning of his brief, the Director also claims sovereign immunity from International's suit. The Director waived sovereign immunity.

Hankins v. Martin

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 5, 2026

However, unique to the qualified immunity context, to overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law. … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity under § 1983, Hankins must establish that the supervisors’ conduct was not “objectively reasonable under clearly established law at the time the conduct occurred.”

Johnson v. Salter

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 2026

But “[b]ecause nonprecedential opinions do not establish any binding law for the circuit, they cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.” Salazar v. … Then, because the Officers have asserted qualified immunity, Johnson is also required to “identify clearly established law requiring an officer” to intervene under similar circumstances. Id. at 647 n.13.

Evans v. City of Marlin

986 F.2d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 16, 1993

The district court also concluded that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. R. at 269. … —Dallas 1992) (issue of fact whether officers acted in good faith when carrying out discretionary duties so as to qualify for common law immunity) (writ filed Nov. 20, 1992). .The Appellees cite Exxon Corp. v.

Industrial Indemnity, Inc. v. Moon Landrieu, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development of the United States of America

615 F.2d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 1980

Suit by a building contractor’s surety and assignee over payment for construction work on a housing project insured by the Secretary in a program authorized by the National Housing Act clearly satisfies this criterion. … The plaintiff argues that Section 1702 itself established jurisdiction in the federal district court below.

Ballard v. Wall

413 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2005

Ordering the police officers to arrest and imprison Ballard and requiring Ballard’s payment of a money judgment are clearly acts normally performed by a judge. … Despite Ballard’s assertions alleging that Judge Lambert arrested and imprisoned him because he did not pay his debt, the record clearly reveals the contrary.

Venson Eugene Williams v. A. L. Dutton, Warden of the State Prison at Reidsville, Georgia

400 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 1968

Truett”; (2) a writing “promising immunity from prosecution or preferential treatment, sentence or reward to Marion C. … Dowd, 21 the Supreme Court established the guidelines applicable to jury qualifications.

Tonia Massey v. DeSoto County, Mississippi

477 F. App'x 256 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 5, 2012

immunity.44 In light of Autin and the clearly established Graham factors, no reasonable police officer would believe the force used against Greg Massey to be reasonable under the circumstances. … Furthermore, the law was clearly established at the time of the actions here.

Sheridan Transportation Company and Tug New York Company v. United States

897 F.2d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 1990

Some time after the buoy was established to mark the LYKES wrecks, the Flowers fleet was established. The LYKES wrecks are located at Mile 115.4 AHP whereas the fleet facilities extend from Mile 115.2 to Mile 115.7 AHP. … This finding is not clearly erroneous and the SHERIDAN, therefore, does not run afoul of the PENNSYLVANIA rule.

Kenneth Owens v. Richard Stalder

638 F. App'x 277 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 6, 2016

immunity, as it was clearly established by 1992 that good time credits should be calculated retroactively to the date of sentencing. … Defendants’ conduct was therefore objectively unreasonable under clearly established law.

United States v. Bell

367 F.3d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 20, 2004

Bell argues that only qualified interpreters can be used. The Act, however, specifically allows for an exception when no qualified interpreter is available. 28 U.S.C. § 1827 (b)(2). … The district court declared Bell unavailable after he had been granted immunity yet refused to testify.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Board of Supervisors

559 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 9, 2009

In light of the guidelines established in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. … Indeed, it is well-established that sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment operates only to protect States from private lawsuits—not from lawsuits by the federal government. See West Virginia v.

Joseph Dauzat v. Bessie Carter

670 F. App'x 297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 7, 2016

The district court did not err in denying Buckley’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … would have understood that the failure to provide physical therapy as ordered violated Dauzat’s clearly established constitutional right.

Elmer Cox v. Nueces County, Texas

577 F. App'x 306 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 7, 2014

In order to negate the defense of qualified immunity, Cox must plead sufficient facts to make it plausible that Kaelin’s conduct: (1) violated a “clearly established federal constitutional right;” and (2) was not “objectively … reasonable in light of clearly established law.”

City of Safety Harbor v. Birchfield

529 F.2d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 12, 1976

Even if the motivation of the legislators in supporting the bill was suspect, however, their conduct was clearly within the traditional sphere of legislative activity and thus immune from a civil rights action in accordance … With regard to them, the complaint as originally framed alleged no injury in fact, and the private plaintiffs thus failed to establish that they had standing to sue. United States v.

Lucas Goar v. Compania Peruana De Vapores

688 F.2d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 8, 1982

The immunity of the sovereign in its own courts was established at least as early as the reign of Edward I (1272-1307). See 1 F. Pollock & F. Maitland, History of English Law 516 (2d ed. 1959). … Clearly, this particular ground does not support the immunity of foreign sovereigns. When the United States allows an action against itself it consents to suit. See McElrath.

August v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 5, 2003

§ 2000d-73 clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally conditions the receipt of federal funds on a state’s waiver of sovereign immunity under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. … statute than the one that must be cleared to establish “knowing waiver” of sovereign immunity under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.11 As the College Savings Bank Court explained

Ryan Zimmerman v. Gary Cutler

657 F. App'x 340 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 2016

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1866 (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)). … The parties, like the district court, focus on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—whether it was “clearly established” in February 2012 that deploying a Taser to stop a person reasonably suspected of a misdemeanor

Calvin Rodrigue v. Morehouse Detention Center, et

557 F. App'x 341 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 27, 2014

The district judge also rejected defendants’ qualified immunity argument, stating that “[i]t is clearly established under Supreme Court precedent both that Rodrigue had a federal right to medical care and that Defendants … Appellants contend that the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity because the judge conducted her inquiry into clearly established law “at too general a level.”