Case law

Jamieson v. Shaw

772 F.2d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 7, 1985

None of the defendants asserted qualified immunity, as that theory was articulated in Harlow v. … Ja-mieson further alleged that Chief of Police Seale had authority to establish city policy with respect to Fourth Amendment compliance, that he failed to establish such policy and, instead, "perpetuated an official policy

Maria Banda Nino v. Eric Holder, Jr.

690 F.3d 691 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 2012

An analytical path which strays somewhat from what we just described has been established by the Attorney General. See Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008). … The district court granted the university officials’ motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, ruling that they were reasonable to believe the students possessed the requisite “intent to harm” under

Dawes v. City of Dallas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2024

Qualified immunity cases present two questions. First, did the officers violate a constitutional right? And second, was the right at issue clearly established at the time of the officers’ alleged violation? … the qualified immunity analysis is whether the officer had “fair notice” that his conduct was unlawful.

Creel v. United States

598 F.3d 210 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 1, 2010

The contract clearly provided that VAMC retained no control over the professional aspects of Mercer’s work. … The “power of the federal government to control the detailed physical performance” of Mercer’s services was insufficient to establish an employer–employee relationship.

Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co.

643 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 1981

While their analysis may be supported by the literal text of article XXII(3), the clearly established intent of the parties to the treaty overrides such literalism. Accordingly, we hold that C. … Itoh-America, on the other hand, argues that the “of their choice” provision entails a broad immunity from all domestic employment legislation.

Alvin Chance v. United States

322 F.2d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1963

The court below found that there was no such exclusion and we cannot say that such a finding was clearly erroneous. … We do not think the court below was clearly in error in holding that there were names of three hundred qualified persons in the box; the evidence is overwhelming that there were. (6) The last objection is to the physical

Melder v. Allstate Corp.

404 F.3d 328 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 16, 2005

The removing party has the burden of establishing improper joinder by showing: Plaintiffs' inability to establish a claim under state law against the non-diverse defendant; or actual fraud in pleading jurisdictional facts … 6 Recognized exceptions to sovereign immunity include: a state's waiver of sovereign immunity, see Idaho v.

Hightower v. Texas Hospital Ass'n

65 F.3d 443 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 1995

The parties agree that the Plan qualifies as an employee pension benefit plan under 29 U.S.C. section 1002 (2)(A). … The court also concluded that Title I, section 1003(b)(1), is inapplicable because of clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.

Mark Tarka v. G. Charles Franklin

891 F.2d 102 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 29, 1989

The state action was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds relating to the doctrine of official immunity. Plaintiff appealed his case to the Texas Supreme Court without success. … Because we reject Tarka’s right of access to the recommendation letters founded on FERPA, it follows that the defendants have not shed their qualified immunity from suit for denying that access. Mitchell v.

Khan v. Garland

69 F.4th 265 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2023

Ct. 1993) (“The present case is not similar to those cases where the condition of the vehicle clearly indicated that it had been stolen or 6 Case: 21-60146 Document … an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.”

Mayor of Columbus v. Dennison

69 F. 58 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 23, 1895

The bonds were voted as a donation by the constitutional majority of two-thirds of the qualified voters, as recited in the face of the bonds themselves, and, this only barrier against legislative power being removed, the … legislature clearly had the right to ratify.

Thomas Martone v. Walter Robb, III

902 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 4, 2018

ERISA “protects participants in voluntarily established, private sector retirement plans . . . … as a ‘qualified change in investment options.’”

Randy Argo v. Brazoria County, Texas

399 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 2010

This included an instruction on whether the defendants met the two-part test for qualified immunity. … immunity.

Pierce v. Hearne Independent School District

600 F. App'x 194 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 7, 2015

See id. at 668. 6  Case: 14-50788 Document: 00512892939 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 No. 14-50788 clearly established … Additionally, Principal McGill was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. c. Claim against Hearne I.S.D.

Jessie Hartfield v. State of Mississippi, Carrie D. Lapsy v. City of Jackson, Henry Horn v. State of Mississippi, Ralph Edwin King, Jr. v. State of Mississippi, Stephen Rutledge v. City of Jackson

367 F.2d 362 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 11, 1966

State, is clearly controlled by State of Georgia, Petitioner, v. Rachel et al., 1965, 384 U.S. 780 , 86 S.Ct. 1783 , 16 L.Ed.2d 925 , decided June 20, 1966. … Further, if such were the case, he would be immune to prosecution in any court under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the decision in Hamm v.

Robert F. Mitchell, Individually v. Lone Star Ammunition, Inc., Etc., Day & Zimmerman, Inc., Etc. And Norris Industries, Etc.

913 F.2d 242 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 3, 1990

They allege that the Government established precise specifications regarding the design of the mortar shell’s manufacturing process. … Defects of this nature are clearly a result of the manufacturing process, not the design process. In such situations, no federal interest would support the extension of the government contractor defense.

Coolbaugh v. La State

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 25, 1998

Seminole Tribe established a two-pronged test for determining the validity of Congress’ abrogation of state immunity through the exercise of its Section 5 enforcement power. … one previously established by the Supreme Court.

United States v. Cecil Brown

298 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2002

Use immunity — also termed use/derivative-use immunity — is "[ijmmunity from the use of the compelled testimony (or any information derived from that testimony) in a future prosecution against the witness.” … Transactional immunity is "[ijmmunity from prosecution for any event or transaction described in the compelled testimony. This is the broadest form of immunity.” Black's Law Dictionary 754 (7th ed.1999). .

Cano v. Faust

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 14, 2023

The doctrine of qualified immunity “alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” in that the plaintiff has the burden of showing that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Valderas v. … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, we review: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Johnson v. LA Dept of Education

343 F.3d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 22, 2005

7 contractual principles.13 In these cases, the defendants were authorized by the State to accept the benefits of substantial sums of federal Spending Clause money burdened with the clearly … That interest, which is undeniably significant and clearly reflected in the legislative history, flows with every dollar spent by a department or agency receiving federal funds.