Case law

Ometu v. City of San Antonio

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2025

“To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officer (1) violated a constitutional right that was (2) clearly established at the time.” Id. … in the light of that then clearly established law.”

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.

Calhoun County Texas v. United States

132 F.3d 1100 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 28, 1998

immunity of the United States are subject to strict construction in favor of the United States. … Irwin qualified that maxim by stating that "[o]nce 10 Congress has made such a waiver, we think that making the rule of equitable tolling applicable to suits against the Government

78 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1632, 75 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,748 Walter Deines v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

164 F.3d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 19, 1999

Most recently we explained: 12 We have held that a plaintiff can take his case to a jury with evidence that he was clearly better qualified than [other] employees who were selected for the position at issue.... 13 Moreover … McCall was better qualified than he.

Lunsford v. Price

885 F.2d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 22, 1989

scheme clearly indicates a result contrary to that dictated by the [words of the] statute." … [by] conclusively establish[ing the] scope of office or employment...."); Martin v. Merriday, 706 F.Supp. 42 (N.D.

Mohler v. Mississippi

782 F.2d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 18, 1986

Appellants have failed to allege clearly the necessary elements to state “equal protection” and “privileges and immunities” claims. The complaint at best contains unformed ideas about such claims. … Since there is no property right endangered by official state action, we must conclude that no federal court jurisdiction is established to vindicate federal rights by finding that certain state officials are responsible

Joseph Barber, Jr. v. Cedric Glover

613 F. App'x 433 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

Id. 1 Mogavero is entitled to qualified immunity 1 Mogavero states that, in addition to having jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, we have jurisdiction … established law.

Fontenot v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

718 F.3d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2013

the parties were not actually diverse, but the manufacturer asserted that the non-diverse healthcare providers were improperly named defendants under the Louisiana medical malpractice statute, which bars claims against qualified … Here, since § 1447(e) remands are only for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the district court’s characterization as such was clearly colorable. 5  Case: 12-30711

Kenneth Johnson v. Rick Thaler

507 F. App'x 370 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2013

“Qualified immunity protects 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 would have known … Evaluating qualified immunity is a two-step process. First, we determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. See Siegert v.

Hinojosa v. Johnson

277 F. App'x 370 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 1, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability in civil suits unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … at issue; and (3) show that the defendant’s “conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the legal rules clearly established.”

United States v. George Warren Fields

906 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 5, 1990

In reviewing both findings negating Appellant’s opportunity for a reduction, the district court was justified in its determinations that Appellant did not truthfully accept responsibility and did not qualify as a minor participant … It is specifically agreed and understood that this plea agreement contemplates the full and honest cooperation of the defendant at all times, and that this agreement does not immunize or insulate him from penalties of perjury

Terrance Woods v. John Keiffer

610 F. App'x 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 22, 2015

This shifted the summary judgment burden to Woods, who was required to rebut the qualified immunity defense by showing that Kiefer’s “conduct violated clearly established law.” Id. … That evidence does not bar Kiefer’s invocation of the qualified immunity defense; qualified immunity allows “ample room for mistaken judgments.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 343 (1986).

Anna Davis v. Jack Strain

676 F. App'x 285 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 2017

to “rebut the defense by establishing that the officer’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” 7 “[Q]ualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” 8 “A clearly established right is one that is ‘sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood

Rankin v. City of Wichita Falls

762 F.2d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 1985

The defendants do not plead qualified immunity to suit under section 1983. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 , 100 S.Ct. 1920 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980). … Accordingly, we do not consider whether this action could be barred, at least in part, by qualified immunity. .

United States Department of Agriculture v. Hunter

171 F.2d 793 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 11, 1949

The petition as amended further alleges that each plaintiff was duly received into the project, qualified to become a purchaser of his farm, arranged for a loan and paid the purchase price, in most instances more than $3,000 … It is an agency of the Government, not empowered to sue, or to be sued in evasion of sovereign immunity. See United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Remund, 330 U.S. 539, 541 , 67 S.Ct. 891 , 91 L.Ed. 1082 .

James v. Gonzalez

348 F. App'x 957 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 8, 2009

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.” Club Retro L.L.C. v. … The district court correctly found that Appellant has therefore failed to establish a violation of his constitutional rights and has not overcome Appellees’ qualified immunity defense. IV.

Jeffrey Byron Taylor v. Norman A. Carlson, Etc.

671 F.2d 137 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 1982

The defendants established their entitlement to qualified immunity based on these good faith actions. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). The plaintiff did not rebut this defense.

Floyd E. McDowell v. The State of Texas, Texas Board of Mental Health and Mental Retardation

465 F.2d 1342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 1972

McDowell appeals, contending he established his claims as a matter of law or, in the alternative, presented sufficient evidence to create jury issues. Dr. … McDowell contends that the admission of this child would have been contrary to Texas law 4 and the established program of the Richmond State School. Dr.

Abdullah v. Paxton

65 F.4th 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 11, 2023

Abdullah concedes that his claims against the directors were barred by sovereign immunity—a jurisdictional defect. … Rather, Abdullah must still establish a violation of his own personal rights. See id. at 474–75; see also Barber v.

Virgie Lee Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board Sylvia Pearson Walter Gatlin Herbert Dixon Kenneth Doyle Stanley Miller Rodessa Metoyer, in Their Official Capacities v. Betty J. Cox, Intervenor-Appellee

118 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 1997

That issue was rendered moot by the completion of the investigation, Cox's hearing, and Cox's termination by the Board Second, the appellants' argument of qualified immunity is without merit. … It is well established law in this Circuit that the defenses of qualified and absolute immunity do not extend to suits for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Chrissy F. By Medley v.