Case law

Deidra Clayton v. Columbia Casualty Company

547 F. App'x 645 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 26, 2013

“The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether … clearly-established law.

Corry v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston

499 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 28, 2007

However, given the three qualified medical experts who found no objective medical evidence of disability, the administrator, under the established standard of review that restricts the courts, was not obliged to accept the … specialists clearly stating that there was no verifiable objective medical evidence to support Corry’s claim of disability.

Raymond Kimbriel v. City of Greenville Mississippi

647 F. App'x 353 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 28, 2016

Officer Smith has consistently claimed qualified immunity in this case. … Kimbriel failed to meet his burden to show that Officer Smith’s conduct violated Kimbriel’s clearly established rights, as required by the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See id. at 732–33.

Lynette Coleman v. Louisville Pants Corporation and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Clc

691 F.2d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 15, 1982

Each complainant was at all times material hereto duly qualified to receive the payment of the trade adjustment allowance and other benefits. … Some tests are well established.

Mariano S. Falcon v. General Telephone Company

815 F.2d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 23, 1987

Unless Clearly Erroneous ... … To warrant a trial on employment discrimination, Falcon first had to establish a prima facie case by showing that he was a member of a protected class, he was qualified for the position which he sought, he was rejected, and

Robert R. Evans, Cross-Appellee v. City of Dallas, Cross-Appellant

861 F.2d 846 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 1988

The district court dismissed even this remaining due process claim as to the individual defendants who were determined to have qualified immunity. … Evans also complains of the district court’s dismissal of the individual defendants pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Simpson v. Cisneros

129 F.4th 901 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 4, 2025

The denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is an immediately reviewable collateral order. 7 Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence and the pleadings show “that there is no genuine dispute … A failed summary judgment motion denying qualified immunity is appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. 10 III.

Elizondo v. Parks

254 F. App'x 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 9, 2007

The qualified immunity analysis requires a two-step inquiry. Id. First, we must determine whether Elizondo’s allegations, if true, establish a violation of a clearly established right. … “Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established federal right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if [his] conduct was objectively reasonable.” Id.

Seantrey Morris v. Joseph Mekdessie

674 F. App'x 374 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 2016

. § 1983, Defendant–Appellant Brandon Leblanc appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … The first determination is “that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Id.

Crull v. City of New Braunfels

267 F. App'x 338 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 25, 2008

The district court granted Penshorn and Scott’s motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. … “Qualified” or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Joseph Brewer v. M. Prentiss Blackwell

692 F.2d 387 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 29, 1982

under the “clearly erroneous” standard. … Officials “are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

David Blair v. City of Dallas

666 F. App'x 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 15, 2016

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are immune from suit under § 1983 unless their conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Thus, under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it is apparent that any right that may have been violated was not clearly established at the time of the officers’ alleged misconduct.

Florida v. Mathews

526 F.2d 319 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 1976

and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to. constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Unless clearly erroneous or unreasonable, the interpretation of a statute by a regulatory agency that is charged with administering it is given considerable deference by federal courts.

FG Hemisphere Associates, LLC v. République Du Congo

455 F.3d 575 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 2006

Some of the factual findings are clearly erroneous. Others, though not clearly erroneous, were used in the district court’s misinterpretation and/or misapplication of law. … Next, the district court’s finding that the Congo waived its FSIA defenses regarding SNPC’s property is clearly erroneous.

Albert H. Carter v. Robert Seamans, Jr., as Secretary of the Air Force

411 F.2d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 8, 1969

Accordingly, the defense of sovereign immunity is not available and the jurisdictional objection based thereon must fail. … Sec. 1491 quite clearly gives the Court of Claims jurisdiction over the case at bar. 9 .

United States v. Williams

809 F.2d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 1987

While the proof used to establish these separate elements may in particular cases coalesce, proof of one does not necessarily establish the other. … We must apply, however, the clearly erroneous standard to the trial court's findings. . 18 U.S.C. § 6002 permits the government to grant use immunity whenever a witness refuses to testify before, among others, "an agency

Cordell Davis v. City of Fort Worth

600 F. App'x 926 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 2, 2015

the defendant’s behavior was objectively reasonable under clearly established law at the time the conduct occurred.” … established law, then the government official is entitled to qualified immunity.”

David Chatman v. Adams County, MS

518 F. App'x 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2013

Miles filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of his summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity. … “First, the district court decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.

United States v. Panos

634 F. App'x 123 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2015

“A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” *125 United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 618 (5th Cir.2013). … More than one person involved in a conspiracy can qualify as a leader or organizer for purposes of the enhancement, and a defendant’s role can be inferred from available facts. United States v.

Daves v. Dallas Cty

984 F.3d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 28, 2020

The Court held that Preiser did not bar their Section 1983 action because they did not clearly ask for release from state custody. Id. … If a county official, then “neither sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, nor any other defense stands in the way at this stage of the case.” Id. at 994–95.