Case law

Johnson v. Stevenson

170 F.2d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 7, 1948

Their standing to complain under this statute had just previously been established, as it has been recently confirmed by Smith v. … But Stevenson does not have the standing of a voter who is being discriminated against contrary to the Constitution and whose right is clearly secured by it.

Cantu v. Tamez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2024

Here, we resolve the inquiry on the “clearly established” step. See Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015). … We (A) deny qualified immunity to Officers Tamez and Rodriguez and (B) grant qualified immunity to Officer Ochoa.

Lee v. Conecuh County Board of Education

634 F.2d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 22, 1981

The trial court found that defendants successfully rebutted the prima facie case of intentional racial discrimination established by Gantt. Because we find that its holding is clearly erroneous, we reverse. … The finding of the lower court that the position at Repton High remains open is clearly erroneous.

O'Dwyer v. State of Louisiana

310 F. App'x 741 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 19, 2009

In evaluating the plaintiff’s showing that qualified immunity is inapplicable, we ask whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time the alleged … Fifth Circuit case law establishes that this does not rise to the level required to overcome the asserted defense of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Morin v.

Carlos Chacon v. City of Austin, Texas

577 F. App'x 355 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2014

established law such that qualified immunity is inappropriate. … Reasonableness in light of clearly established law Our second consideration in analyzing qualified immunity is whether the officers’ actions were unreasonable in light of clearly established law.

National Association of Women's and Children's Apparel Salesmen, Inc., A/K/A Nawcas Guild, Etc. v. Federal Trade Commission

479 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 21, 1973

The affiliate who sponsors the show rents the necessary facilities, solicits registration from members qualified to exhibit, and provides general logistical support for the registrants. … They have also established some rather successful programs of insurance, retirement and death benefits. .

Denise Chavez, United States of America, Intervenor v. Arte Publico Press Nicolas Kanellos University of Houston

157 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 1, 1998

Unless the state is clearly informed that its actions will result in the loss of immunity, the dissent would not find a knowing and voluntary waiver of state sovereign immunity. … It may be that this allows an end-run around Seminole, but *298 this end-run is one grounded in the text of the Constitution and well-established precedent. 54 I respectfully dissent. .

Ramirez v. Granado

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2025

’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.’” … B The remaining issue is whether Plaintiff-Appellant’s version of the disputed facts constitutes a violation of clearly established law.

Benedict Emesowum v. Houston Police Department

561 F. App'x 372 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 7, 2014

In any event, his alleged claims would not survive the qualified immunity defense raised by the police officers. … whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendants’ alleged misconduct.

Ken Realty Co., Inc. v. Johnson

138 F.2d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 29, 1943

The settler may well be extended protection till he is firmly established as such, and the government has a continuing interest to see that he is. … written contract at one place speaks of “the purchaser’s interest in the property subsequent to the acceptance of this proposal”, and at another of the leases being “subordinate to the Government’s interest in the property”, clearly

Castille v. Port Arthur ISD

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 24, 2026

“To defeat a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … They are entitled to qualified immunity.

Williamson v. Williamson

844 F.2d 1166 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 16, 1988

Sec. 85-3-21 (Supp.1987) sets forth the qualifications for claiming a homestead exemption as well as the rights and immunities appertaining thereto. … We decline, however, to read this proposition so broadly, since the factual context in which it was enunciated is clearly distinguishable.

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.

Ranger Insurance Company v. William R. Algie and Edith A. Algie

482 F.2d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 1973

Summary judgment should be granted only where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and where the record clearly shows that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Sartor v. … South Carolina, where the suit was pending, does not recognize the doctrine of interspousal immunity. 2 .

In Re: Yokamon Laneal Hearn, Movant. Yokamon Laneal Hearn v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

376 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 6, 2004

While we are mindful that this case does not involve a claim of qualified immunity, McClendon clearly supports the proposition that alternative analyses should not be common practice in this Circuit. … Outside the context of qualified immunity, no opinion of this court has ever suggested that alternative holdings are improper.

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Laney

199 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 2000

Louisiana, 134 U.S.  4 concluding that “Congress clearly intended to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity … Although prior decisions of this Court have not been entirely consistent on this issue, certain principles are well established.

NCDR, L.L.C. v. Mauze & Bagby, P.L.L.C., et

745 F.3d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2014

Claims of qualified immunity are distinct from the merits of a plaintiff’s claim. Id. (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 527–28 (1985)). … from “civil liability” as opposed to immunity from suit or trial.

Janet Karpovs, Individually and as Personal Representative of Juris A. Karpovs, Deceased v. State of Mississippi

663 F.2d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 11, 1981

This contention is contrary to established law in this circuit. In Intracoastal Transport, Inc. v. … Eleventh Amendment Beneficiaries The suit for damages against the State of Mississippi is clearly barred.

Walton v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.

192 F.2d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 1951

On the contrary it seems to us that the Georgia Supreme Court did not write mere obiter dicta, but clearly and directly decided that the insurance company owed no duty to Mrs. … Arnold not to plead its insured’s immunity to suit. It follows that in this case the summary judgment for the defendant was properly rendered. Affirmed.

United States v. Minh Huynh

334 F. App'x 636 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 2009

Because the requested fee award implicates the Government’s sovereign immunity, any waiver of immunity must be “unequivocally expressed, with all uncertainties being resolved in favor of the [Government.” Boehms v. … Far from unequivocally and expressly authorizing Plaintiffs’ fee request, the statutory language of § 2465(b)(1) clearly does not apply to their action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983 (e). 2.