Case law

O'Dwyer v. United States

345 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

Federal tort claims The FTCA waives sovereign immunity for federal tort claims brought against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2674 . … We decline this invitation to circumvent the jurisdictional limitations established by Congress when it chose to subject the United States to tort liability under the FTCA.

Marvin Jones, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Fred R. Diamond, Etc.

594 F.2d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 26, 1979

Other courts have agreed that negligent conduct resulting in the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right is actionable under § 1983. See, e. g., Navarette v. … If defendants are not shielded by their qualified immunity, the district court should proceed to hear evidence concerning individual damages after appropriate notice is given to class members. 2 See Section VI, infra.

United States v. Carlos Marcello

423 F.2d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 15, 1970

Under the New York State immunity statute he was granted immunity from prosecution (as well as from the use of testimony elicited) for any crime he might mention in his testimony. … Consequently the grant of immunity did not cover his response.

Randolph v. Texas Rehabilitation Commission

214 F. App'x 424 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

on qualified immunity. … First, we must determine whether the plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a violation of a clearly established federal right.6 If not, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.7 If a violation is established

Doe Ex Rel. Magee v. Covington County School District

659 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2011

Qualified Immunity As the Supreme Court recently reiterated, “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.63 We hold today that the alleged facts do indeed make out a violation of Jane’s substantive

Bloss v. Moore

269 F. App'x 446 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2008

Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from suits when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Because Bloss’s allegations, if true, do not establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Moore is entitled to qualified immunity. See Mace v.

Dr. John I. Reddix v. Mrs. May Lucky, Registrar of Voters, Ouachita Parish

252 F.2d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 28, 1958

Such an assumption seems clearly justified, for here the plaintiff charges that the defendant participated in a proceeding challenging him and 3,000 other Negroes as being illegally registered; that she failed to comply with … Whatever area of doubt remains as to the identification of other civil rights, there can be no doubt that the right to vote in any state election is guaranteed to every qualified citizen without regard to his race or color

James Spence v. Wallace Nelson

603 F. App'x 250 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2015

He argued, inter alia, that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established free speech and due process rights and their conduct was not objectively reasonable under the … in light of clearly established law.

Kirk Smith v. City Of El Paso Texas

477 F. App'x 240 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 24, 2012

The officers moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields 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

BNSF Railway Company v. United States

775 F.3d 743 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 15, 2015

In light of the indeterminate text, structure, purpose, and legislative history of this statutory provision, we cannot conclude the Congress has “spoken clearly” as to the meaning of “money remuneration.” 92 … -10014 Document: 00512904642 Page: 20 Date Filed: 01/15/2015 No. 13-10014 We agree. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity

Cunningham v. Housing Authority

764 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 5, 1985

To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination in a Title YII case, the complainant must demonstrate that she applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; despite her qualifications … The district court found that Cunningham was more qualified for the position than Soileau.

Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Family Planning & Preventative Health Servs., Inc v. Smith

913 F.3d 551 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 17, 2019

The Final Notice also states that evidence establishes that PPGC engaged in misrepresentations regarding fetal tissue procurement. … The party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must clearly carry the burden of persuasion on all four elements. Id.

Harlan v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

359 F. App'x 458 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 28, 2009

immunity. … The plaintiffs cite no authority, clearly established or otherwise, that indicates that they had any protected constitutional rights or interests related to that child.

Scanlan v. TX A & M University

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 4, 2003

From the outset, the district court limited discovery to the issue of qualified immunity. … Later, the Court explained what is required to establish deliberate indifference. In Piotrowski v.

Bibbs v. Early

541 F.3d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 12, 2008

Defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting Bibbs’ medical records to show that he had not requested medical assistance, urging qualified immunity,3 and maintaining that Bibbs’ allegations failed to state a claim of … II “The law of this circuit is clearly established . . . that a prison official may not retaliate against or harass an inmate . . . for complaining to a supervisor about a guard’s misconduct.”4 “To state a valid claim

Thompson v. Johnson

348 F. App'x 919 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 6, 2009

Second, if a constitutional right has been violated, we must ask whether the right was clearly established. Id. … Because Briones’ conduct did not violate a constitutional right, there is no need to continue the qualified immunity analysis. We therefore agree that Briones was entitled to qualified immunity.

Eunice Webb v. Rodney Arbuckle

456 F. App'x 374 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 29, 2011

Consequently, we may decline to address the first step of the qualified immunity analysis when we determine that a defendant did not act in an objectively unreasonable manner in light of clearly established law at the time … City of Columbia, 305 F.3d 314, 323 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (“Ultimately, a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established

Kimmel v. Texas A&M University

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 19, 2003

immunity. … Later, the Court explained what is required to establish deliberate indifference. In Piotrowski v.

Thompson v. Microsoft

2 F.4th 460 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 22, 2021

“To establish a prima facie discrimination claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he was qualified for the job; and (3) that he was subject to an adverse employment decision … is not a qualified individual under the ADA.

Excel Willowbrook, L.L.C. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n

758 F.3d 592 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 2014

Hence, under the plain language of the Agreement, the Leases qualified as Other Real Estate assigned outright to *596 Chase. … Horizontal privity clearly exists in this case, as the covenants that the Landlords seek to enforce are *601 included in the original leases between the Landlords and WaMu.