Case law

Biggers v. Massingill

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

But the district court granted Massingill’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … The district court did not address the first qualified immunity prong, but Biggers’s allegations plainly satisfy it.

Mrs. Cordie Ola Fair v. United States

234 F.2d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 25, 1956

While they were in a sense exercising discretion as to what they should and should not do, they were not performing the sort of discretionary functions contemplated by § 2680(a) and clearly described in the Dalehite decision … Recognizing such a clearly defined breadth of purpose for the bill as a whole, and the general trend toward increasing the scope of the waiver by the United States of its sovereign immunity from suit, it is inconsistent to

Cleveland v. Liberty County Sheriff's Department

626 F. App'x 540 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 30, 2015

A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity unless his actions violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … “[W]here the complained of conduct is a law enforcement warrantless search of a residence, qualified immunity turns not only on whether it was then clearly established that such a search required probable cause and exigent

De Bardeleben Marine Corp., as Successor in Interest to Blue Stack Towing Company v. United States

451 F.2d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 1971

The tide of history is running clearly against the concept of sovereign immunity. The disfavor into which the doctrine has fallen was observed as far back as Keifer & Keifer v. … As we have frequently done 19 we hold that the interests at stake clearly call for a uniform federal standard.

Ellis Gaspard and Opal Gaspard v. United States of America, Dennis Ronald Sheehan and Nellie Katherine Sheehan, Husband and Wife v. United States

713 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 6, 1983

FTCA Claims At common law, the sovereign was absolutely immune from suit. … Clearly then, any involvement of civilian officials must have been in conjunction with military planning and orders.

Estate of Michael Mark Pollard v. Hood Coun

579 F. App'x 260 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2014

When, however, a defendant’s summary judgment motion is premised upon qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to raise facts that dispute the Defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity. See Michalik v. … Brown, 623 F.3d at 253 (“The plaintiff bears the burden of negating qualified immunity, but all inferences are drawn in his favor.”) (internal citation omitted).

Nolan ex rel. Estate of Johnson v. Boeing Co.

919 F.2d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 27, 1990

The citizenship of the parties to the main claims, described previously, establishes minimal diversity. … Because the “entire case and all parties” would not be before it, the state court clearly is not a suitable and convenient forum.

Munajj v. City of Fredericksburg

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 1, 2026

Wayman’s actions, Munajj asserts, violated clearly established state and federal law. … Next, Wayman is entitled to qualified immunity for his arrest of Munajj. An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v.

Benton, Benton & Benton, a Professional Law Corporation v. The Louisiana Public Facilities Authority, a Louisiana Public Trust and Public Corporation

897 F.2d 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 1990

With typical American ingenuity, by the late 1970s tax free “municipal” bonds were being used to finance such “public” improvements as retail stores, fast-food outlets, commercial establishments, shopping centers and apartment … The defendants argue that these cases apply to this situation and that under the undisputed facts, there is clearly no violation of the Sherman Act.

Dextric Williams v. City of Cleveland, Mississippi

736 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 2013

Overcoming qualified immunity requires showing that (1) an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier v. … Addressing Saucier’s second prong, we find that the officers did not violate a right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Audry Releford, Jr. v. City of Houston

678 F. App'x 267 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 8, 2017

“Where factual disputes exist in an interlocutory appeal asserting qualified immunity, we accept the plaintiff’s version of the facts as true.” 3 To the extent that Rosemon argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity … The Supreme Court established in 1985 that “[a] police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.” 4 To the extent that Rosemon argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity under

Jeanette Livezey v. Ernesto Fierro

657 F. App'x 274 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2016

Therefore, we address that question before turning to qualified immunity. I. … To establish that qualified immunity does not apply, the plaintiffs must prove that Chief Mitchell “(1) violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

In Re International Systems And Controls Corporation Securities Litigation

693 F.2d 1235 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 23, 1982

This holding is clearly correct, since A.Y. was a "representative of a party," Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3), and there was a sufficient anticipation of litigation. … Since this was not reported officially until 1978, it could be argued that a prima facie case of ongoing fraud was thereby established.

Steve Cooper v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Cm

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 2016

First, TPSA had failed to establish that the original plaintiffs contin- ued to have a stake in the case. Second, TPSA lacked standing to bring a Rule 60(b) motion. A. … however, a statute has only indirect effects on interstate commerce and regulates evenhandedly, [the Court] ha[s] examined whether the State’s interest is legitimate and whether the burden on interstate commerce clearly

John Russell Webster, Cross-Appellants v. The City of Houston, Cross-Appellee

689 F.2d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 1982

The Court held that the good faith of municipal officials does not entitle a municipality to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability. … But there is no tradition of immunity for municipal corporations, and neither history nor policy support a construction of § 1983 that would justify the qualified immunity accorded the City of Independence. 445 U.S. at 638

Litton Systems, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company

539 F.2d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 23, 1976

It is arguable that Bell desires to establish a regulatory necessity for its practices after itself inventing and establishing those very practices. Bell will have the opportunity to establish such necessity. … First, we believe that this stay order is clearly separable or “collateral”. The order goes not toward the merits of the underlying antitrust claim, nor does it go to the merits of Bell’s state action immunity defense.

United States v. Patrick Loring Robinson and Matthew Wilford Madsen

635 F.2d 363 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 26, 1981

He was, immediately, granted immunity but still refused to testify, deciding, apparently, that he was better off going to jail for contempt than testifying. … The government sought to establish that the conspirators, including appellants, continued to act through August 19 in an attempt to locate the marijuana or to retrieve their money.

Richard Winfrey, Jr. v. San Jacinto County

481 F. App'x 969 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 27, 2012

Qualified and Municipal Immunity Bar Most of Winfrey’s Claims “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory … Qualified immunity will not attach if a “reasonably well-trained officer in [the officer’s] position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause.” Malley v.

O'Dwyer v. Department of Transportation & Development

309 F. App'x 833 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 5, 2009

The district court dismissed O’Dwyer’s § 1983 claims against individual state officers, on qualified immunity grounds, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). … Once the validity of service has been contested, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing its validity. Carimi v. Royal Carribean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344, 1346 (5th Cir.1992).

David Cobb v. City of Harahan, Louisiana

516 F. App'x 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 2013

Second, Mosca argued that Cobb’s allegations did not show that Mosca’s actions were objectively unreasonable based on clearly established law. … ” with the qualified immunity analysis.