Case law

Evans v. City of Marlin, Texas

986 F.2d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 13, 1993

City of Galveston, 805 F.2d 558, 559-60 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1021 , 107 S.Ct. 3266 , 97 L.Ed.2d 764 (1987) 7 The district court also concluded that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity … --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) 8 The Appellees cite Exxon Corp. v.

United States v. Russell Weiss

599 F.2d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 19, 1979

His contention is based on the principle established in Massiah v. … Rocco, 587 F.2d 144 , 147 n.10 (3d Cir. 1978) (grant of immunity within sole discretion of executive branch). Since Weiss had not established such a right, he is not in a position to assert that it was prejudiced. .

Richard D. Snapp v. United States Postal Service-Texarkana Management Sectional Center, William M. Capshaw, Manager, Postmaster

664 F.2d 1329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 7, 1982

That the waiver of immunity has been implemented by a regulation cannot improve his case. … Because we hold that Snapp’s action is outside of federal jurisdiction, we do not reach the issue of immunity.

Hale v. King

624 F.3d 178 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 26, 2011

Georgia,4 the Supreme Court established a three-part test for addressing whether Title II validly abrogates state sovereign immunity in a given case. … Bell Communs., Inc., 310 F.3d 398, 400 (5th Cir. 2002) (“To establish a prima facie case for discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must be a qualified individual with a disability.”); Kocsis v.

Dealer's Transport Co. v. Reese

138 F.2d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 1943

In support of the motion to set aside or quash the process against the Corporation, it was urged, that the Corporation had not qualified to do business in the State of Alabama and had no agent in Alabama upon whom process … Even a soldier, be he ever so vital to the Army, is not immune from either civil or criminal process.

United States v. David Brummitt

665 F.2d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 28, 1981

However, here, no prima facie case of jury discrimination has been established. … 451 , 24 L.Ed.2d 434 (1969). 13 . 28 U.S.C. § 1865 (b) provides: (b) In making such determination the chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as the plan may provide, shall deem any person qualified

Carolyn King Palermo v. Dewayne Rorex, Jack Chivatero and Charles Hoyle

806 F.2d 1266 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1987

The “under color” test could not be more clearly satisfied. … The Supreme Court has established that federal officials are absolutely immune for common law torts taken “within the outer perimeter of petitioner’s line of duty ...” Barr v.

Frosch v. Alsobrook

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2025

Second, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Clearly Established Having found a violation of a constitutional right, we next ask whether that right was clearly established. The answer is yes.

Howard Gault Co., Texas Citrus and Vegetable Association, Formerly "Texas Citrus & Vegetable Growers and Shippers, Inc.", Plaintiffs-Counter Cross v. Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., Cross-Appellants, Jesus Moya, Defendant-Counter Cross-Appellant. Texas Farm Workers Union, Cross-Appellants, Delia Gamez-Prince, Cross-Appellant v. Joe Brown, (Successor in Office to Travis McPherson Defendants- Cross-Appellee

848 F.2d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 1988

from monetary liability under Sec. 1983; (iv) there was no good faith immunity because the unconstitutionality of article 5154f, relied upon by the growers in obtaining the TRO, had been clearly established by the Texas … that accorded the state agents. 44 Assuming, arguendo, that such an immunity exists, these private parties are entitled only to qualified immunity, measured under the standard of good faith.

Colle v. Brazos County, Tex.

981 F.2d 237 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 20, 1993

Further, when government officials are likely to invoke qualified immunity, we demand that a complaint state factual detail and particularity including why the defendant-official cannot maintain the immunity defense. 42 36 … Government officials are shielded by qualified immunity from liability for damages under § 1983 so long, but only so long, as their conduct has not violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Sanders v. Gibson

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 7, 2025

immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the allegations demonstrate both that “(1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time.”

Henderson v. Cockrell

333 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 9, 2003

A decision is “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States ... if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by th[e] Court on a question … The district court stated, however, that it must give great deference to the trial court’s determination because there is no clearly established federal law on the admissibility of this type of evidence.

Zayler v. Department of Agriculture (In re Supreme Beef Processors, Inc.)

468 F.3d 248 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 2006

Supreme Court nor the Bankruptcy Code “clearly distinguishes between [federal] sovereign immunity from suit and immunity from liability.” … Immunity for the exercise of discretion has been viewed as essential to the administration of government policy: a view that sustains the judicially crafted federal common law of immunity for its employees— from qualified

Indigo Williams v. Tate Reeves

954 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 2020

“Nevertheless, the term ‘Eleventh Amendment immunity’ has been used loosely and interchangeably with ‘state sovereign immunity’ to refer to a state’s immunity from suit without its consent in federal courts.” Id. … Plaintiffs clearly comply with the first requirement for an Ex parte Young suit: the named defendants are state officers, and they are sued in their official capacities.

Haddock v. Tarrant Cty

986 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 1, 2021

Haddock also takes issue with the district court’s holding that Baca- Bennett has qualified immunity. … “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

Green Valley Special Util Dist v. Donna Nelson, et

969 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 7, 2020

But what qualifies as prospective? … I use the term “Eleventh Amendment immunity” to refer to the immunity recognized in the text of that amendment and the term “state sovereign immunity” to refer to the States’ broader constitutional immunity that predated

Estate of Wilbert Lee Henson v. Wichita Cou

440 F. App'x 341 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 2011

“objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question.” … Thus, the first element of the qualified immunity test is not met, and Nurse Kraj-ca is immune from suit.

Gay Student Services v. Texas a & M University

612 F.2d 160 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 20, 1980

Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , 94 S.Ct. 1347 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) and Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), prospective injunctive relief is clearly allowed against state officials in their official … This is wholly immaterial because jurisdiction has been properly established under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 for a § 1983 cause of action.

United States v. Hawkins

661 F.2d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 16, 1981

All five had been immunized in exchange for their testimony. … This finding by the court is a factual determination which is subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. 40 Upon review of the record, we cannot say the court clearly erred in this determination.

City of Lafayette, Louisiana, and City of Plaquemine, Louisiana v. Lousiana Power & Light Company

532 F.2d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 27, 1976

Nor was there any state statute which directed members of the bar to establish minimum fee schedules. … Thus, for example, cities, counties, and other state political subdivisions are not considered “the state” for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Edelman v.