Case law

Clark v. City of Wilmer Texas

178 F.3d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 13, 1999

ANALYSIS Under the applicable two-prong test, defendants are not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity if the plaintiffs have alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the defendants … ’ conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the firings.2 It has long been established in this circuit that government employees cannot lawfully be discharged in retaliation

Trois v. Long

362 F. App'x 399 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 21, 2010

For the claim pursuant to § 1983, Deputy Long asserts qualified immunity. … clearly established law at the time of the incident”.

Garry Rose v. William Sherman

676 F. App'x 258 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 20, 2017

Where, as here, qualified immunity is raised as a defense, there is no liability for actions that do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Because Rose did not demonstrate a constitutional violation, Sherman and Burge were entitled to qualified immunity. See Pratt, 822 F.3d at 180-81. AFFIRMED.

Gardner v. Luckey

500 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 16, 1974

The Supreme Court held that none of the named plaintiffs had alleged enough to establish a case or controversy with the defendants. … Hurt, 489 F.2d 786 (CA7, 1973) (it is at least arguable that the public defender acts under color of law, but he enjoys qualified immunity against damage suits).

Empower Texans, Incorporated v. Charlie Ger

977 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 2020

Geren filed a motion to dismiss based on legislative immunity. On May 23, the district court granted Geren’s motion to dismiss. … We do not interpret Laurenzo to have established a calendar for evading review, in which a claimed injury that will last no more than a year will evade review.

Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp.

939 F.2d 1106 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 1991

Miller’s experience with cancer occurred during his residency when he assisted in a study of the immune system as affected by smoking and asbestos. Dr. … Defendants’ experts agreed, but went a step further; they stated that the determination of the pathogenesis of a particular type of cancer requires clearly positive results from one or more of these types of testing.

United States v. Garcia Abrego

141 F.3d 142 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 12, 1998

In that case, the defendants argued that “the government’s granting immunity to its witnesses while denying immunity to [the defendants’ prospective witness] skewed the evidence against [the defendants] and denied them … The transfer of the $108,000 to Vega clearly constituted “a giving over to the care or possession of another,” and thus a transaction for purposes of establishing a money laundering offense.

Tommy Lynn Weathersby v. Conoco Oil Company, Conoco Oil Company v. Global Marine, and National Supply Company

752 F.2d 953 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 28, 1984

Hence, Global Marine has no right to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in establishing its right to indemnification visa-vis Conoco. … Because the subcontractor, National, provided coverage to Weathersby, the language of the 1984 amendment clearly preeludes Conoco from assuming "employer” status for the purpose of claiming § 905 immunity.

Estate of Steven Everett Shaw v. Nicolas Si

366 F. App'x 522 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 18, 2010

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … under clearly established law.

Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Supreme Court of State of La.

252 F.3d 781 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 29, 2001

The district court held that the complaint failed to establish the deprivation of any cognizable federal right. … And, Rule XX does not clearly qualify as an attempt by the LSC to use private speakers to transmit information pertaining to its own program.

Versie Kimble v. D. J. McDuffy Inc. And Industrial Foundation of the South, and All of Its Subscribers

648 F.2d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 18, 1981

Clearly, race is not involved. … Kimble did, in fact, run unsuccessfully for political office in July 1973, having qualified to run by filing a 50-signature petition in late April or early May. Deposition of Kimble at 29-31. .

Arthur Elizondo v. Fletcher Parks

431 F. App'x 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … Therefore, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages but only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Cockrell v. Cates

121 F.3d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 1997

Defendants plead qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of "qualified immunity," government officials are not subject to liability for the performance of their discretionary actions unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional

Levins v. Smith

285 F. App'x 197 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 2008

established law. … established law, officials may sometimes be required to proceed to trial even though the ultimate resolution of those fac- tual disputes may show that they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability

Senu-Oke v. Jackson State University

283 F. App'x 236 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 2008

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from personal liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … For a right to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Dickerson v. United States

280 F.3d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 5, 2002

United States, 863 F.2d 149, 172-73 (1st Cir. 1988), has interpreted this to mean that the two prongs establish a subjective and an objective test. 8 administrative claims because … Waiver of sovereign immunity, therefore, is a jurisdictional prerequisite to being sued.

R. C. McCormick Cross v. Edwin W. Edwards, Etc., Cross

646 F.2d 173 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 28, 1981

First, they contend that two of the appellants, Governor Edwards and Wingate White, are immune from personal liability. … The district court’s finding that that involvement was the reason for the discharge is not clearly erroneous.

Joseph v. Lopinto

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2023

Plaintiffs’ claims thus failed at the first step of the qualified immunity analysis, and the court did not reach the second, i.e., whether the law bearing on Plaintiffs’ claims was clearly established. … ’ conduct was clearly established, because, as discussed above the line, Plaintiffs have not established a constitutional violation.

Carico v. Bristow

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

The assertion of qualified immunity shifts the burden “to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established … right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

Ciudadanos Unidos De San Juan v. Hidalgo County Grand Jury Commissioners, Robert Caballero v. Dellis Prater

622 F.2d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 1980

Appellants do not now press any claims for damages, and appellees have no immunity from equitable or declaratory relief. See, e. g., Slavin v. … Therefore, no question of official immunity remains in these cases.