Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.13s
185 F. App'x 360 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 2006
Martinez’s entitlement to qualified immunity. We review de novo the denial of a motion for JMOL. Green, 284 F.3d at 653. … III Qualified Immunity J. Martinez asserts that the jury erred when it denied his qualified immunity claim. Prison guards like J.
Cited 2 timesUnpublished622 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.
Cited 56 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 19, 2024
We may limit our analysis to the “clearly established” prong if it resolves the qualified immunity issue. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236–37 (2009). … Because Cole did not clearly establish Traylor’s right as relevant here, we conclude that Yorka is entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedKoenig v. International Systems & Controls Corp. Securities Litigation
693 F.2d 1235 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 23, 1982
Second, the court found that all of the documents in the special review binders were within the work product immunity. This holding is clearly correct, since A.Y. was a “representative of a party,” Fed.R. … Since this was not reported officially until 1978, it could be argued that a prima facie case of ongoing fraud was thereby established.
Cited 1 timesPublishedArthur 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
Cited 10 timesUnpublished340 F. App'x 181 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 13, 2009
In order to state a claim for the constitutional violation of excessive force against an arrestee, the plaintiff must establish "(1) an injury, which (2) resulted directly and only from the use of force that was clearly excessive … Goffney had filed an initial complaint, one amended complaint, and his reply to the assertion of qualified immunity.
Cited 8 timesUnpublished280 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.
Cited 21 timesPublished389 F.3d 142 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 22, 2004
Judge Furge-son further stated that even if the indictment had not been returned, Shields’s claims would still fail because he did not show that Twiss and Coleman should be denied qualified immunity for acting unreasonably … evidence that Twiss and Coleman should be denied official immunity under Texas state law.
Cited 81 timesPublishedCourt 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.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished207 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 7, 2000
we need not address whether the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. 12 8 Hainze's state law assault and battery claims against the officers are premised on the same basis advanced in support of his … Such an evaluation was clearly required of the County to ensure its compliance with the ADA. 39 We do not suggest that the County's law enforcement officers received no training to deal with mental health situations.
Cited 0 timesPublishedF. D. Reese, Etc. v. Dallas County, Alabama, Etc.
505 F.2d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 1974
Defendants’ expression of concern at the prospect of a city-dominated county government 5 clearly shows the divergence of interests. … This Court has held, however, that the Dusch-type plan is not immune from constitutional attack. See Lipscomb v. Jonsson, 5 Cir., 1972, 459 F.2d 335 .
Reversed by Dallas County v. Reese, 421 U.S. 477 (1975)Cited 24 timesPublished621 F.2d 1331 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 1980
In fact, as the district court below noted, both the concurring and dissenting opinions in Bivens clearly indicate that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precluded the plaintiffs in Bivens from recovering against the government … Because this finding has not been shown to be clearly erroneous, there is no reversible error here.
Cited 95 timesPublishedCourt 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.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMorgan v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice McConnell Unit
537 F. App'x 502 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 2013
“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “Therefore, the qualified-immunity inquiry has two prongs: (1) whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation
Cited 2 timesUnpublished121 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
Cited 0 timesUnpublished524 F. App'x 69 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 2013
unreasonable and excessive force in effectuating that arrest, and that he did not have qualified immunity for either offense. … which prong of the two-part qualified immunity inquiry to address first.13 2.
Cited 56 timesUnpublishedChristopher Lock v. Cindia Torres
694 F. App'x 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 2017
Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Torres is thus entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 2 timesUnpublished619 F.2d 449 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 1980
Because the evidence does not establish a deprivation of federal constitutional rights, we reverse. I. … Cherry, 489 F.2d 1098 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 910 , 94 S.Ct. 2607 , 41 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974), the offering of a sham candidate to prevent another from winning the primary election was said to have "clearly debased
Cited 31 timesPublished285 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
Cited 1 timesUnpublishedAir Evac EMS, Inc. v. Texas, Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation
851 F.3d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2017
As noted, Ex parte Young represents an equitable exception to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. 209 U.S. at 155–56. … Likewise, in K.P., the board members’ reliance on the abortion statute to deny liability protection qualified as enforcement. 627 F.3d at 125.
Cited 106 timesPublished
Ask Donna