Case law

In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 2012

Bernard plaintiffs’ argument, then, we must determine whether the Corps’s decision to dredge MRGO instead of implementing foreshore protection constitutes flood-control activity qualifying for Section 702c immunity. … The district court found that “the Corps clearly took the position that its primary mission was to keep the shipping channel open to deep draft traffic regardless of the consequences.” Id. at 660.

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.

Hall v. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

685 F. App'x 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 17, 2017

of then clearly established law.” … “The first step in a qualified- immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established federal constitutional (or federal statutory) right.” Id. at 457.

United States v. German

486 F.3d 849 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 14, 2007

United States is likewise inapplicable.”9 What is clear, however, is that in statutory cases like this one, Congressional intent controls.10 Indeed, “[w]here Congress has both established a right and … Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). 13 that this conclusion is clearly erroneous.

Borchgrevink v. Gonzalez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2026

In other words, we “may review ‘whether the facts pleaded establish’ ‘a violation of clearly-established law,’” id. at 501 (quoting Ashcroft v. … a violation of clearly established law.”

Resa Latiolais v. Bradley Griffith

484 F. App'x 983 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the court must decide: 1) Whether the facts made out a violation of a constitutional right; and 2) whether that right was “clearly established

In Re Bruce Selcraig

705 F.2d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 27, 1983

Despite the care taken by the district court, we find that the necessity of obtaining the information was not yet established and the reporter’s qualified privilege, therefore, not yet overcome. … We accept these findings as not clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

United States v. Medina-Anicacio

325 F.3d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 2003

concealed dagger is closely associated with gang violence: the California legislature broadly defined “dirk or dagger” because of its concern that gang members who carry lethal knives hidden beneath their clothing would be immune … Clearly, this type of weapon is intended for gang violence. . Common sense tells us that a confrontation is more likely to escalate to violence when one of the participants is carrying a concealed weapon.

United States v. Gibson

48 F.3d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 21, 1995

He maintains that the Government's burden cannot be satisfied by a "mere assertion" that the immunized testimony was not used. … The probation officer responded that no drug amounts 6 were established during the December 3rd meeting during which Gibson provided an overview of the drug operation, that

City of Hearne, Texas v. Milton Johnson

929 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 8, 2019

SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity to a city attorney in a Section 1983 suit. We conclude the plaintiff does not have standing to pursue the claim in federal court. … Russ moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, but the motion was denied. He appealed.

Jennings v. Joshua Independent School District

869 F.2d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 12, 1989

The Court announced the following test for the defense of qualified immunity for police officers in this context: “Defendants will not be immune if, on an objective basis, it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer … immunity, and subjective good faith for qualified immunity purposes is always a question of fact. .

Tittle v. Aldacosta

544 F.2d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 3, 1977

When the owner’s lack of privity and knowledge is established, recovery is limited to the value of the vessel, its pending freight, etc. … His burden is a heavy one then in meeting the congressional policy goals, although of course pleasure vessels and sporting charter vessels may well qualify as “seagoing vessels” 46 U.S.C. § 183 (f).

Turner v. Oliver

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

Qualified Immunity This litigation presented arguments about both absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Because both must be shown to deny qualified immunity, the failure to show either will cause qualified immunity to be granted. Id. Here, we need consider only the requirement of clearly established law.

Paz v. Hayden

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 1, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … City of Abilene, 814 F.3d 721, 733 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (explaining that plaintiffs failed to argue that the constitutional right was clearly established and thus failed to overcome qualified immunity).

Haverkamp v. Linthicum

6 F.4th 662 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 2021

of proof for a [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction,” and, at the pleading stage, the plaintiff’s “‘burden is to allege a plausible set of facts establishing … In other words, Texas’s position in the district court is not “clearly inconsistent” with its argument on appeal. Hall, 327 F.3d at 396.

Stena Rederi AB v. Comision de Contratos del Comite Ejecutivo General del Sindicato Revolucionario de Trabajadores Petroleros de la Republica Mexicana, S.C.

923 F.2d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 1991

at least some facts that would establish the exceptions. … Maritime Internat’l Nominees Establishment, 693 F.2d at 1108 & n. 20. In Hanson v.

Imogene Watson v. City of Leland

532 F. App'x 453 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 4, 2013

the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Once raised, plaintiffs have the burden to “negate” qualified immunity by introducing evidence that, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, suggests that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional

Bias v. Woods

288 F. App'x 158 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 29, 2008

Sabater argues that the district court erred in denying qualified immunity because: (1) Bias failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; (2) Dr. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights