Case law

Witherspoon v. United States

838 F.2d 803 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 4, 1988

The "official capacity" claims were dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds, Witherspoon having omitted to comply with the administrative claim requirement of the Federal Tort Claims Act. … Summary judgment on alternate grounds of the merits and qualified immunity followed on the individual capacity claims. We affirmed, in an unpublished opinion. Witherspoon v.

Walzier v. McMullen

333 F. App'x 848 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 18, 2009

“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 … immunity is unavailing.

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.

Ernest O. Jefferson v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company

303 F.2d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 6, 1962

Firemen having successfully passed qualifying examination shall be eligible as engineers. … If for any reason the senior eligible fireman or engineer to be hired is not available, and junior qualified fireman is promoted and used in actual service out of his turn, whatever standing the junior fireman so used establishes

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.

Gray v. Tunica County MS

100 F. App'x 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2004

Appellants have alleged that Wellington failed to protect decedent from suicide, thereby alleging a violation of decedent’s clearly established constitutional right. See id. at 393; Hare v. … Appellants may have established negligence, but the facts do not demonstrate that Wellington’s conduct was such as to deprive him of qualified immunity under the test set forth above.

Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China

142 F.3d 887 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 1998

[The Bank of China’s] refusal to forward funds under the letter of credit clearly has a direct effect in the United States — [Voesb-Al-pine] does not recover payment under the letter of credit for goods it shipped from the … The district court also concluded that Voest-Alpine had pled facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the first clause based on its allegations that the letter of credit had been issued *893 "through" the Bank of

Frank W. Scroggins, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Air Transfer, Inc. v. Air Cargo, Inc.

534 F.2d 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 8, 1976

modification or cancellation thereof, between such air carrier and any other air carrier, foreign air carrier, or other carrier for pooling or apportioning earnings, losses, traffic, service, or equipment, or relating to the establishment … However, our conclusion is that such individualized approval is not necessary for antitrust immunity, so long as the alleged conduct is clearly within the contemplation of prior CAB orders.

Cunningham v. Circle 8 Crane Services

64 F.4th 597 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 2023

To determine whether an employee qualifies as a “mechanic,” “neither the name given to his position nor that given to the work . . . he does is controlling. … We conclude that the Secretary clearly has the power to regulate, as relevant here, “mechanics”—see 29 C.F.R. §§ 782.2(b)(1), 782.6(a)—so we reject his first challenge.

Storemski v. Harris County Texas

176 F.3d 478 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 4, 1999

The court held that Klevenhagen was not protected by the defense of qualified immunity in Daniel Storemski’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. … The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity asserted in a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Livingston v. State of Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 2, 2023

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff can establish that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established … In this case, the district court determined that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity under the first prong because Plaintiff was unable to establish a genuine dispute that his Fourth Amendment rights were

Hospitality House, Inc v. Gilbert

298 F.3d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 2002

Real Parties in Interest, 259 F.3d 387, 391 (5th Cir.2001) (noting that "[w]ith appellate jurisdiction [over the state's interlocutory appeal of the denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity] established," it was proper "to address … We thus conclude that to make a settlement agreement part of a dismissal order by incorporation, Kokkonen requires a district court to clearly indicate its intention within the dismissal order itself by expressly incorporating

State of Texas v. USA

968 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 2020

They claim that it violates the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity. … Here, as the States concede, Congress did not intend to tax States because the statute’s “clear wording” shows that Congress clearly and expressly excluded states from the Provider Fee.

Barnett v. Foster

138 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 1998

The district court granted the summary judgment on the basis that the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity in their official, and to qualified immunity in their individual, capacities. … his rights to adequate medical care and for filing the instant suit, the well- known test for such immunity is whether (1) the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and

Tommy McNeal v. William Hollowell, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary

481 F.2d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1973

As such, this factor is of absolutely no assistance to the State in its attempt to establish a manifest or imperious necessity for the nolle prosequi. … Our review of the record convinces us that the trial judge was not so informed and any finding of fact to the contrary is clearly erroneous. See footnote 3, supra.

Victoria Rizzo v. Children's World Learning Centers, Incorporated, Doing Business as Cwlc, Incorporated

173 F.3d 254 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 1999

Was Rizzo an otherwise qualified employee? CWLC contends that Rizzo could not safely drive the school van, and that she was therefore not qualified. … We have already established that the burden of proof that Rizzo constituted a direct threat falls on the appellant.

Kee v. City of Rowlett TX

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 4, 2001

Davis also invoked absolute and qualified immunity because he alleged his actions were taken pursuant to his prosecutorial duties. … immunity in such a situation.

Cook v. Exxon Shipping Co.

745 F.2d 967 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 5, 1984

That finding is not clearly erroneous. … We share Exxon’s concern with respect to the validity of *975 this conclusion. 7 We think, however, that the record nonetheless clearly supports the conclusion that Cook was more qualified for a TA position than Hurtado.

Daniel Edward Bynum v. Fmc Corporation

770 F.2d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 1985

To establish the government contractor defense, a military contractor must first demonstrate that the government is immune from liability under the Feres-Stencel doctrine. … The panel similarly disposed of the immunity claim of Harvell-Kilgore Corp., the manufacturer of the fuses, stating that "Kilgore was clearly an independent contractor and is not entitled to sovereign immunity."

Oreste Kidder and Thelma Kidder v. H & B Marine, Inc.

932 F.2d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 12, 1991

Co., 904 F.2d 236 (5th Cir.1990), we addressed the question whether the employer in that case, Noffs, had established and maintained a qualifying ERISA insurance plan: Noffs established and maintained the plan by purchasing … That combined number of average employees during the applicable year, 1986, is clearly over 20. 734 F.Supp. 724, 729 (footnote omitted).