Case law

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.

United States v. Humberto Duron-Caldera

737 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 16, 2013

In Crawford, the Court defined “testimony” as “[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” Id. at 51. … [T]here is not a third category of witnesses, helpful to the prosecution, but somehow immune from confrontation.” Id. at 313-14.

Jimenez v. Wood County

660 F.3d 841 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 13, 2011

The County argued that Sheriff Daugherty was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, that the officers had reasonable suspicion that Ms. … The Supreme Court has articulated one exception to this rule: "[Wjhere the law at the time of trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law at the time of appeal!

Brady v. Fort Bend County

145 F.3d 691 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 27, 1998

On June 30, 1993, the County moved for summary judgment, and Molina also moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied both motions. … Given that a panel of this circuit unanimously concluded that Molina was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the Plaintiffs’ claims, see Brady, 58 F.3d at 176, it can hardly 15 The County

Sligh v. City of Conroe

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 21, 2023

To overcome Sutton’s qualified immunity defense, Sligh must show (1) that Sutton violated a constitutional right; and (2) that the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. … To overcome Montes’s qualified immunity defense, Sligh must identify law clearly establishing that Montes’s actions violated her constitutional rights, i.e., she must show that “any reasonable officer would have

Greer v. Litscher

211 F. App'x 238 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 30, 2004

We review de novo the granting of a motion for summary judgment predicated on qualified immunity. See Correa v. Fischer, 982 F.2d 931, 932 (5th Cir. 1993). … Government officers are protected from suit under the qualified-immunity doctrine when their actions were objectively reasonable “in light of clearly established law.” Anderson v.

Tompkins v. Cyr

202 F.3d 770 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 28, 2000

In any event, the prejudicial effect certainly did not “clearly” outweigh the probative value. … But there was, in all likelihood, a great deal of overlap between the two theories of recovery, since most of the activities qualifying for one would qualify for the other.

Kellerman v. Askew

541 F.2d 1089 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 1976

In Wood the Court was addressing the issue of § 1983 immunity for school board members who exercised good faith in their actions. … established constitutional rights that his action cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith."

Cleveland McWILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant-Appellee

658 F.2d 326 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 1981

McWilliams also argues that his longer presence within the Escambia County School system made him more qualified than Hales. … McWilliams established a prima facie case as to the denial of this promotion.

Aerojet-General Corporation v. Reubin O'DOnOvan Askew, Governor of the State of Florida

453 F.2d 819 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 2, 1972

The Existence of Eleventh Amendment Immunity Mr. … The defendants nevertheless clearly have a duty to deal fairly with those with whom they have contracted.

Juan Fonseca v. Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 2

496 F.2d 109 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 1974

state, own land subject to taxation in the district, and be at least 21 years of age. 2 They contend that the statutory requirement that a director own taxable land in the district establishes a constitutionally impermissible … A claim is insubstantial only if “ 'its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be

Jennifer Butler v. Tammy Weppelman

544 F. App'x 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 29, 2013

The district court held that Weppelman was entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. … Second, it asks whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. The court may conduct the two-pronged inquiry in any order, see Pearson v.

Jamieson v. Shaw

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

Such substantial reasons clearly exist here. 40 I want to emphasize that this was a second amended complaint. … We are compelled by the Federal Rules to give her the opportunity to show what facts she can to support her claim 9 None of the defendants asserted qualified immunity, as that theory was articulated in Harlow v.

Perez v. Texas a & M University at Corpus Christi

589 F. App'x 244 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 3, 2014

STANDARD OF REVIEW “The grant of a motion to dismiss based upon qualified immunity is reviewed de novo.” Williams-Boldware v. … , if a violation is established, (2) “whether the right was clearly established” at the time of violation.

Tinoco v. City of Hidalgo

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 28, 2025

Because Tinoco did not meet his burden to show a clearly established right, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on his Fourth Amendment claim. See Cole, 935 F.3d at 451. … Because Tinoco did not meet his burden to demonstrate a clearly established right, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from his Fourteenth Amendment claims. See id.

Restaurant Law Center v. LABR

66 F.4th 593 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 28, 2023

See Wages & White Invs., 16 F.4th at 1142 (observing agency did not claim recoverable compliance costs “probably because federal agencies generally enjoy sovereign immunity for any monetary damages”). … As the record evidence does not clearly and unmistakably show otherwise, one cannot say record evidence fails to lend plausible support for the district court’s finding of fact that “these costs should have already

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.

John M. Hagerty v. Succession of Laura McCloskey Clement

749 F.2d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 1984

The United States Supreme Court has clearly established that the assertion of judicial immunity is an absolute defense in a suit challenging a ruling or order of a court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Dennis v. … Sanctions under section 1927 are clearly warranted.

D.G. Ex Rel. LaNisha T. v. New Caney Independent School District

806 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

Mar. 6, 2015) (“[T]he IDEA does not establish a statute of limitations to bring a claim for attorneys’ fees in federal court.”); G-N v. City of Northampton, 60 F. Supp. 3d 267, 269 (D. … Abbott Labs., Inc., 164 F.3d 270, 275 n.7 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[A] qualifying phrase in a statute ‘usually is construed to apply to the provision or clause immediately preceding it.’”

Randle v. PNC Financial

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 2025

Officer Dixon moved for dismissal of Randle’s claims, asserting qualified immunity. … The magistrate judge recommended dismissal and concluded in its qualified immunity analysis that Randle failed to support that Officer Dixon violated clearly established law. 2 The district court adopted the magistrate judge