Case law

LeClerc v. Webb

419 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 29, 2005

The defendants moved to quash the plaintiffs’ discovery requests, asserting judicial and legislative immunity. Finding the defendants judicially immune, a magistrate judge granted the motion. … with federal policy that prevented these student aliens from establishing state domicile.

United States v. Michael G. Thevis, Alton Bart Hood, Global Industries, Inc., Anna Jeanette Evans

665 F.2d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 11, 1982

Government exhibit 47 was highly probative in establishing that Thevis had a motive to kill Underhill. … The Third Circuit held that judicial use immunity was available when: (1) immunity was properly sought in the district court; (2) the witness is available to testify; (3) the proffered testimony is both essential and clearly

Samuel Perez, Etc., Martha Beatriz Sanchez Perez v. The United States of America

830 F.2d 54 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 21, 1987

The Supreme Court recently described the clearly-erroneous standard in Anderson v. … Nothing in the Federal Tort Claims Act restricts this waiver of immunity in any way relevant to the Perezes’ case.

Tammy Bell v. Jon Thornburg

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 2013

She was replaced by a white woman, who Bell contends was less qualified. B. … In Willingham, the Supreme Court considered whether the bare assertion of federal qualified immunity sufficed to allow removal under § 1442(a)(1). See 395 U.S. at 406–08.

Hale v. King

624 F.3d 178 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 14, 2010

The ADA provides that “[a] State shall not be immune” from suits under the act because of sovereign immunity. 42 U.S.C. § 12202. … The defendants and the United States contend that the district court failed to apply the first step of the Georgia test because it did not determine whether Hale had established a prima facie title II claim.

Southern Sog, Inc. v. James S. Roland, Area Director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development

644 F.2d 376 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 1981

In Industrial Indemnity, the court made two general statements of law applicable here: (1) the “sue and be sued” language of 12 U.S.C. § 1702 (1976) 6 is a qualified waiver of the sovereign immunity covering the Secretary … We have previously stated that appellant’s claims against James Roland and Jerry Moize, as pleaded, were barred by sovereign immunity.

Gonzalez v. Blue Cross Blue Shield

62 F.4th 891 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 13, 2023

The district court dismissed this claim on grounds of federal sovereign immunity. … OPM, our sister circuit did so based on a mistaken premise.31 In Bryan, the court relied on OPM’s regulations to conclude that “Congress clearly intended a limited waiver of sovereign immunity in [FEHBA] disputes.”32

Susan Carnaby v. City of Houston

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 2011

Carnaby appeals only the summary judgment on the qualified-immunity and failure-to-train claims. III. … Qualified immunity is appropriate unless the de- fendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, 564 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2009).

Jimmy Blackburn v. Marshall City Of

42 F.3d 925 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 1995

In considering a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, our first inquiry is whether the plaintiff alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v. … State officials are shielded from liability under qualified immunity unless they violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of their conduct. Pfannstiel v.

Dino Cinel v. Harry F. Connick, Individually and as District Attorney for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana

15 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 1994

Standard for Pleading a § 1983 Case The district court applied this Circuit’s heightened pleading requirement for § 1983 cases established in Elliott v. … The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiff alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and thus, the officers were not entitled to a qualified immunity. Id. at 1544 . 5 .

Matthew Petrie v. City of Grapevine

546 F. App'x 466 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 2013

The court held that Petrie had submitted evidence to create a fact issue on the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and qualified immunity was therefore denied. … The second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to decide whether the challenged conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident.

Sealey v. Mancias

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 19, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … Even if Sealey alleged a constitutional violation, it would not be clearly established.

DeWayne Anderson v. J. McCaleb

480 F. App'x 768 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 15, 2012

In order to determine if the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity we must determine if they violated Anderson’s constitutional rights in a manner that was clearly established as a constitutional violation. … Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Brown v. Wallace

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 14, 2026

right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.”17 This court “may address either prong first,”18 and if either condition is lacking, the defendants are protected by qualified immunity.19 … immunity because the law governing strip and body cavity searches of arrestees was not clearly established as to the particular level of suspicion required at the time she conducted the strip and body cavity search of Brown

Thomas M. Gaubert v. United States

885 F.2d 1284 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 17, 1989

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the FTCA When suing the federal government, a plaintiff must first overcome the bar of sovereign immunity, which establishes that the federal government is not liable for damages resulting … from FTCA suits. 4 Only policy oriented decisions enjoy such immunity.

Pinkerton v. U.S. Department of Education

518 F.3d 278 · 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

Garcia v. Bermea

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 8, 2024

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that (1) “the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right,” and (2) “the right was clearly established.” Cunningham v. … In reviewing whether qualified immunity is proper, we may limit our analysis to the “clearly established” prong if it is dispositive. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236–37 (2009).

Shaddonna Miles v. Housing Authority of Texarkana

667 F. App'x 450 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2016

The magistrate judge also concluded that Nelson was entitled to qualified immunity, as Miles alleged no “acts indicating Nelson violated a clearly established right or that her actions were objectively unreasonable.” … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established

Todd v. Hawk

66 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 5, 1996

On October 17, 1994, the district court dismissed Todd's remaining claims in their entirety on grounds of qualified immunity. … Ct. 1160 (1993), the Supreme Court concluded that the heightened pleading requirement we established in Elliott v.

Vencedora Oceanica Navigacion, S.A. v. Compagnie Nationale Algerienne De Navigation (C.N.A.N.)

730 F.2d 195 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 17, 1984

Passed in 1976, the FSIA codified the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity and attempted to provide a uniform statutory procedure for establishing subject matter and personal jurisdiction over foreign sovereign entities … We note further that section 1605(a)(3), the expropriation exception, clearly embodies a "doing business" test.