Case law

Santander v. Salazar

133 F.4th 471 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2025

Given the plausibility of Santander’s claim, we consider whether the alleged facts, if true, could defeat qualified immunity—specifically whether the right that Santander asserts was “clearly established.” … Brown, 844 F.3d 517, 524 (5th Cir. 2016) (“The second part of the [qualified immunity] inquiry looks to whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” (emphasis added)).

Laviage v. Fite

47 F.4th 402 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Jimerson v. Lewis

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 15, 2024

They saw a maroon vehicle parked in front of the _____________________ 2 A nonprecedential opinion “cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.” … In light of Hartsfield’s guidance interpreting the clearly established law in Garrison, the Jimersons rebutted Lewis’ assertion of qualified immunity. Our unpublished decision in Rogers v. Hooper, 271 F.

Wallace v. County of Comal

400 F.3d 284 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2005

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether the plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.

Dominick Perniciaro, III v. Hampton Lea

901 F.3d 241 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2018

Nicholl’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … Perniciaro has failed to establish that Dr. Thompson violated his clearly established rights, and Dr. Thompson is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Brown v. Miller

519 F.3d 231 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 27, 2008

immunity defense to such claims seeks to shield from liability government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … a constitutional right”; if the court finds a violation then it proceeds to the second step, which is to determine whether “the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case.”9 “To be clearly

Larry Wayne Foster v. City of Lake Jackson, A.A. McClain Etc., William Yenne, Etc., P.C. Miller, Etc., Matthew Houston, Etc., and John Dewey, Etc.

28 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 1994

In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, we engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, we determine whether the plaintiff has allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Accordingly, “ ‘[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations *429 state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.’”

Jose Saldana v. Antonio Garza and Ricardo Olvera

684 F.2d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 1982

Rowland, 678 F.2d 1264, 1271 (5th Cir. 1982). 14 In order to breach the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must establish that a defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. Harlow v. … defendant had acted in violation of clearly established law.

Castillo v. City of Weslaco

369 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 2004

Finding that the Officers sufficiently alleged a violation of clearly established federal law, the district court denied the Appellants’ motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and scheduled the case for … II Qualified immunity is appropriate if “the defendant’s actions were ‘objectively reasonable’ with reference to ‘clearly established lav/ at the time of the conduct in question.” Petta v.

Modica v. Taylor

465 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2006

The qualified immunity determination is a two-step inquiry. First, the court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a violation of a clearly established right. Id. … Whether Humphrey is entitled to qualified immunity Humphrey argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because the FMLA was not clearly established at the time Modica’s employment was terminated.

James E. White v. Leon Taylor, Etc., Clell Harrell

959 F.2d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 29, 1992

is entitled to qualified immunity. … That the right can be identified at this "level of generality" is not sufficient to make it clearly established at the level necessary to deprive Chief Harrell of qualified immunity.

Templeton v. Jarmillo

28 F.4th 618 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2022

Because the officers invoked a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to Templeton to show the officers violated his clearly established rights. Cass v. … Overcoming qualified immunity requires showing clearly established law supporting the plaintiff’s claim, and that demands “that the legal principle clearly prohibit the officer’s conduct in the particular circumstances

Kelson v. Clark

1 F.4th 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2021

a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” … As to the second prong of qualified immunity, we consider whether Fletcher’s constitutional rights were clearly established at the time plaintiffs allege that he was denied treatment.

Doug Morgan v. Plano Independent School Dist

755 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2014

To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the pleading stage, Morgan must allege that the objectionable conduct violated a right that was “clearly established at the time.” Pearson v. … The prior cases had so clearly established the law that the plaintiff was able to overcome the presumption in favor of qualified immunity. Id. at 1030 .

Kovacic v. Villarreal

628 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 2010

Qualified immunity was created to insulate government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … No such constitutional law was then, or is now, clearly established.

Higgenbotham v. Connatser

420 F. App'x 466 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2011

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808, 816 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (denying qualified immunity when the plaintiff alleges violation of a constitutional right and such violation was objectively unreasonable under clearly … is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Arthur Jackson v. W.I. Hollowell

714 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 22, 1983

Qualified Immunity Longstanding precedent establishes the appellants’ entitlement to the benefit of the qualified immunity defense previously recognized in Scheuer v. … Although the defendants have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to the protections of qualified immunity, a separate inquiry must be made to determine whether Jackson adequately demonstrated that his clearly established

Carmona v. Olvera

126 F.4th 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 28, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established [statutory or] constitutional right.” Converse v. City of Kemah, 961 F.3d 771, 774 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Mace v. … And, as noted, because Plaintiff fails to allege violation of a constitutional right, we do not reach the second prong of the qualified-immunity test—whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation

Iving Thomas Barbara Thomas v. City of Dallas, Darwin Gaines Aquilla Allen

175 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 11, 1999

V To determine whether Allen is entitled to qualified immunity, we must de *364 termine (1) whether the Thomases stated a claim for violation of a constitutional right; (2) whether this constitutional right was established … at the time of the actions underlying this lawsuit; and (3) whether the Thomases established that Allen’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the legal rules clearly established.

John Doe, Individually and on Behalf of His Minor Two Children v. State of Louisiana, Paula Bennett and Sheryl George

2 F.3d 1412 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 1993

“Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Austin, 830 F.2d at 1355 . … The district court held that appellants were not protected by qualified immunity because they violated the clearly established right of ‘family integrity.’