Case law

John T. Lemay and Yvonne P. Lemay v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

837 F.2d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 4, 1988

DISCUSSION Section 911(a)(1), as in effect in 1982, permitted a “qualified individual” to exclude from gross income for tax purposes up to $75,000.00 of foreign earned income. 2 The Code defines a “qualified individual” as … While an exact definition of ‘abode’ depends upon the context in which the word is used, it clearly does not mean one’s principal place of business.

Amber Ard v. Steve Rushing

597 F. App'x 213 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 29, 2014

as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “The two-part inquiry into qualified immunity is first ‘whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged,’ and second ‘whether the right was clearly established’ at the time of violation. Id.

PYCA Industries, Inc v. Harrison Cty Waste

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 3, 1996

This language, clearly targeted at libel and slander actions, is not invoked by the allegations recounted in PYCA's tortious interference claim. … However, PYCA's authority relates to qualified immunity for government actors, not sovereign immunity for the state, and is thus distinguishable. See West, 642 So.2d at 920; Grantham, 522 So.2d at 225.

United States v. Henry Chaplinski

579 F.2d 373 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 1, 1978

On appeal, he first contends that the District Court should have excluded the cocaine from the trial on the grounds that it was seized after an illegal search and that the Government had failed to establish a sufficient chain … Furthermore, the combination of a strong odor of glue with suitcase walls of an unusual thickness clearly provided a reasonable suspicion that contraband was present, and fully supported the agent’s action in cutting the

Perez v. Collier

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2021

However, a court may grant qualified immunity on the ground that the right was not clearly established without first inquiring into whether there was a constitutional violation. Pearson v. … established law, they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Earl Truvia v. Harry Julien

577 F. App'x 317 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 2014

Qualified immunity shields a government official from Section 1983 liability if the official’s acts were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the official’s conduct. Atteberry v. … “When a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate the inapplicability of the defense.” Id. (citation omitted).

Salts v. Epps

676 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 29, 2012

The state court’s denial of the Saltses’ claim was contrary to clearly established law. … established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,' or (2) 'involved an unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States

Jack H. Bassett v. The Texas & Pacific Railway Company, and System Federation No. 121 of Railway Employees' Department, A.F. Of l.-c.i.o.

258 F.2d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 18, 1958

In employing carmen the defendant railway has and regularly exercised the right of selection among qualified applicants. “15. … absence during his period of training and service in the armed forces, shall he so restored without loss of seniority, shall be entitled to participate in insurance or other benefits offered by the employer pursuant to established

Annette Fulton v. Kenner City

400 F. App'x 918 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 4, 2010

immunity should protect them.7 They conclude that the order “clearly and finally resolved an important issue separate from the merits of the lawsuit.” … immunity.8 The rationale for permitting such appeals is that qualified immunity is a defense not only from liability, but also from the burdens of litigation.9 When a district court order denying qualified immunity “turns

2 Fair empl.prac.cas. 67, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,061 United States of America, by John N. Mitchell, Attorney General v. Hayes International Corporation

415 F.2d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 19, 1969

The motion for preliminary injunction clearly set forth the government's theory as to what established the pattern or practice of resistance and the impact on that of the changed events. … Whenever a qualified Negro employee is discriminatorily denied a chance to fill a position for which he is qualified and has the seniority to obtain, he suffers irreparable injury and so does the labor force of the country

Crawford v. Collins

116 F.3d 1477 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 1997

immunity. … Because Crawford failed to prove that Davenport caused him any severe injury, as required by the clearly established law at the time of the incident, Davenport is qualifiedly immune from liability under § 1983.

Rodney Hood v. Montgomery County Texas

584 F. App'x 238 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 2014

Hood appeals, arguing that the Appellees violated his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and that the Appellees are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because Hood has failed to show that the Appellees violated a clearly established constitutional right, the Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity on Hood’s claims. See Lytle v.

Jesus A. Medina v. Paul B. O'neill, Etc., Maria Delia Garcia v. Paul B. O'neill, Etc.

838 F.2d 800 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 4, 1988

because these standards were clearly established law. … We also find that INS did not violate Medina’s due process rights, according to the standards we recently have articulated. 9 We do not reach the question of immunity.

William Wood Turner, Jr. v. Casper W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense

728 F.2d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 1984

One such inducement was the establishment of Variable Incentive Pay (“VIP”) under 37 U.S.C. § 313 (1976). … The class also attempts to establish a clear right to the incentive payments by arguing that the regulations are unconstitutional.

McNeal v. City of Katy

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 16, 2023

“The doctrine of 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 … None of McNeal’s cited cases establish, much less clearly establish, that the officers used excessive force. Citing Ware v.

Kallinen v. Newman

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

was no clearly established law that made the Facebook campaign page a government- created forum subject to First Amendment protection.” … In any event, it concluded that Judge Newman would be entitled to qualified immunity for lack of a clearly established law that made his Facebook page a government-created forum subject to First Amendment protection

Lopez v. Ramirez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 27, 2026

Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds including absolute legislative immunity and, alternatively, qualified immunity. … Defendants here assert absolute legislative and qualified immunity, neither of which concern the district court’s jurisdiction. Nevada v.

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Edward T. Rickard, and Bessie Rickard, Individually, Etc., Defendants

492 F.2d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 1974

The district court’s judgment in this matter is not only not clearly erroneous, it is clearly correct. … Provisions 3(c) and 4(c) prohibit Rickard from advertising in the color blue, even though the use of any mark is properly qualified.

United States v. Ruth D. Smith

726 F.2d 183 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 1984

Clearly, this testimony represents evidence of an “extrinsic offense,” i.e., one not charged in the indictment in the case sub judice. 1 In Beechum, this circuit established a two-step test for determining the admissibility … The testimony here was clearly probative; indeed, it could hardly have been more probative.

Weiser v. Castille

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 2023

Analysis To overcome qualified immunity, Deborah is required to demonstrate that: (1) the city officials violated one of her statutory or constitutional rights; and (2) the right was “clearly established” … for the harm [s]he has alleged and that defeat a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.”).