Case law

Goodman v. Harris County

239 F. App'x 869 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 14, 2007

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials such as Ashabranner from liability when they are acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Analysis Under the first step in the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiff must allege that Ashabranner violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Centraal Stikstof Verkoopkanter, N. v. V. Walsh Stevedoring Company, Inc.

380 F.2d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 1967

Thus, for example, it is clearly established that no implied warranty of workmanlike construction exists in the case of the sale of a house, or in similar real estate transactions. Druid Homes, Inc. v. … The immunity of the State Docks from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity was firmly established in State Docks Comm’n v. Barnes, 225 Ala. 403 , 143 So. 581 (1932).

Robertson v. Plano City of Texas

70 F.3d 21 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 16, 1995

immunity, or whether the officers' conduct was "deliberately indifferent" or merely "negligent", or whether the City or its police chief can be held liable … Walker, 950 F.2d 972 (5th Cir. 1991), where we reversed a directed verdict premised on qualified immunity.

Cambric v. City of Corpus Christi

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 13, 2026

Hershey I held the plaintiff stated a claim under Monell but granted qualified immunity to the officers because circuit precedent apparently required that result. 156 F.4th at 559–60 (Ho, J., concurring). … After the en banc vote failed, one panel member then tried and failed to grant panel rehearing to deny qualified immunity. Hershey v. City of Bossier City (“Hershey III”), 163 F.4th 976, 977 (5th Cir.

Equal Access for El Paso, Inc. v. Hawkins

509 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2007

To qualify for federal assistance, a state must submit to the Secretary and have approved a “plan for medical assistance,” § 1396a(a), that contains a comprehensive statement describing the nature and scope of the state's … Under the fee-for-service program, health care professionals are reimbursed based on fee schedules established by HHSC.

Barry Lee and Jim White, Cross-Appellees v. Miller County, Arkansas, Cross-Appellant

800 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 26, 1986

Indeed, the United States Supreme Court in Hall specifically noted: “It may be wise policy, as a matter of harmonious interstate relations, for States to accord each other immunity or to respect any established limits on … The need is obvious in the case of a city such as Texar-kana which straddles the Texas-Arkansas line. *1379 Extending immunity to Miller County would clearly not be “prejudicial to the general interest of [Texas] citizens

Poliner v. Texas Health Systems

537 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 23, 2008

As explained above, the district court’s summary judgment established the propriety of the ad hoc committee review, and that remains 37 See, e.g., Sugarbaker, 190 F.3d at 914 (“In the HCQIA immunity context … Bakare’s] medical management falls below the established standards”); Pfenninger v. Exempla, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1202 (D.

Elaine PETERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

516 F.2d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 1975

Peters was qualified were filled by males. … Peters had not established her prima facie case, the judge was not clearly erroneous in finding that case was rebutted and her termination and the company’s failure to promote or transfer her were not based on sex discrimination

Martha Chavis v. Leland Borden

621 F. App'x 283 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 4, 2015

was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident.’” 5 We may consider these two elements in either order. 6 The plaintiff bears the burden of negating the qualified immunity … established law” element, so Borden is entitled to qualified immunity. 23 See Kovacic v.

Frederick v. LeBlanc

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 1, 2023

The individual Defendants also asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick failed to allege that a clearly established constitutional right was violated. … make out a violation of clearly established law.”

Smith v. Brenoettsy

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 16, 1998

Whitley then filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity,3 which Smith failed to answer. … Not surprisingly, Whitley does not contend that the prohibition against Brengettsy’s alleged actions was not clearly established.

David Delahoussaye v. City of New Iberia

937 F.2d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 22, 1991

Thus, as Delahoussaye concedes, Albert Davis is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment if the University is immune. 7 See Kentucky v. … The district court also reasoned that the suit against Albert Davis in his individual capacity should be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity.

Simeon Staten v. Ted Adams

615 F. App'x 223 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 2015

established at the time of the incident and that, in light of that clearly established law, the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. … We review de novo the issue of qualified immunity. Id.

Schiff v. Williams

519 F.2d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 17, 1975

had abridged First Amendment rights. 12 Recent precedent has broadened the qualified immunity available to public officials who are accused of constitutional wrongs while exercising discretionary duties within the scope … It is the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, coupled with good faith belief, that affords basis for qualified immunity . . .." Scheuer v.

United States v. Allen

625 F.3d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 4, 2010

Ramirez in which the Court denied qualified immunity to agents who acted on a search warrant that was insufficiently particular. … immunity afforded an officer.”

Thompson v. Richter

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 29, 2025

The plaintiffs have the initial burden of showing that the qualified immunity defense is unavailable, plus “the additional burden” of showing that their violated rights were “‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged … And our recent opinion in Weisshaus cuts against Appellants’ argument that the law is clearly established.

McCarthy ex rel. Travis v. Hawkins

381 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2004

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (authorizing interlocutory review of denials of qualified immunity because "[a]ll [the court] need determine is a question of law") and Johnson v. … Plaintiffs and the Government argue that this is not particularly telling because Title II so clearly regulates interstate commerce. As discussed above, this is not correct.

Chapman v. State of Mississippi

339 F. App'x 446 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 4, 2009

No. 08-60475 district court=s denial of their motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. … Under clearly established law at the time, this could demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation. See Easter v.

Robert Skinner v. Jeffrey Gragg

650 F. App'x 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.” Crostley v. … Second, he must claim that the defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the law that was clearly established at the time of the actions complained of.”

Cambre v. Gottardi

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 6, 2025

On appeal, the Defendants argue that the “district court erred in failing to identify any clearly established law particularized to the facts of this case that precluded a grant of qualified immunity.” … Clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes means that the law is “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” 15 “[C]learly established