Case law

Bazan Ex Rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo County

246 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 27, 2001

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability if their actions were objectively reasonable in the light of then clearly established law. … clearly established law.

Austin v. City of Pasadena

74 F.4th 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … The test for qualified immunity involves two steps: “first we ask whether the officer’s alleged conduct has violated a federal right; . . . second we ask whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at

Debera MacE Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jacob Vincent Revill, Deceased v. City of Palestine Pat Henderson

333 F.3d 621 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2003

Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Claims of qualified immunity require a two-step analysis.

Willie Bigford, Jr. v. Joe Max Taylor, Individually and as Sheriff of Galveston County, Texas

896 F.2d 972 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 1990

action generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … For the legal rules to be considered “clearly established,” the “contours” of the right alleged to have been violated “must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

Lampkin v. City of Nacogdoches

7 F.3d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 1993

As the Supreme Court has recently instructed us, the first inquiry in the examination of a defendant's claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has "alleg[ed] the violation of a clearly established Constitutional … The Court emphasized that qualified immunity shields officers from a damage suit if they could have reasonably believed their actions to be lawful, "in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting

Morris v. Dearborne

181 F.3d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 1999

Dearborne contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity because her actions did not violate clearly established law and that her actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. … and the Supreme Court, a defendant’s defense of qualified immunity, based on a claim that the right to family integrity was not clearly established, will fail.

Doe v. Ferguson

128 F.4th 727 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 13, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established [statutory or] constitutional right.” Converse v. City of Kemah, 961 F.3d 771, 774 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Mace v. … If defendant asserts a qualified-immunity defense, “a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established

Knighton v. Benton County, MS

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity When considering a qualified immunity defense, we must determine whether the defendant violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and, if so, whether defendant violated clearly established law. … And it is clearly established. Good v.

Don A. Brawner v. City of Richardson, Texas, L.F. Eudy, Richardson Police Department Director, and Kenneth Yarbrough, Chief of Police

855 F.2d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 18, 1988

established at the time he was fired so as to preclude their asserting a claim of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is a defense for public officials if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 19 “Clearly established” means

Lenell Geter v. James Fortenberry

882 F.2d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 1989

We examine the plaintiffs’ factual allegations only to determine whether they would be sufficient, if proven, to make out a violation of clearly-established law. 3 II. … However, in Geter I we held that these same allegations were substantial enough to “remove the cloak of qualified immunity”: “[A] police officer cannot avail himself of a qualified immunity defense if he procures false identification

E.A.F.F. v. Gonzalez

600 F. App'x 205 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 16, 2015

The analysis of a defense of qualified immunity involves two steps. “First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Hernandez ex rel. … Whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right, as required under the first step of this court’s qualified immunity analysis, is not at issue.

Jonathan Davidson v. City of Stafford, Texas, et a

848 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … On the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, recent Supreme Court decisions addressing claims for excessive force have “reiterate[d] the longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law’ should not be defined

Doug Morgan v. Plano Independent School District

610 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2010

Qualified immunity thus shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages but only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a … Appellees’ have alleged a violation of clearly established law; therefore, Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Dept.

228 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2000

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the defendant's … the first hurdle in defeating the defendants' qualified immunity defense. 13 The second part of our qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the defendants' conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly

Ballentine v. Broxton

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 16, 2025

To overcome qualified immunity, Ballentine must show (1) “that he adequately alleged that his rights were violated,” and (2) “that, at the time his rights were violated, legal precedent clearly established the officials’ … Again, however, the second step of qualified immunity—whether “legal precedent clearly established the officials’ actions as unlawful”—bars Ballentine from recovering damages.3 Stevenson, 113 F.4th at 501. ______

Martinez v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

300 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 554; and whether Laura Martinez has shown violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thereby depriving the three individual Defendants of qualified immunity. … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we apply a well-established, two-step analysis: whether the official violated a clearly established constitutional right; and, if he

Hampton Co. Nat. Sur., LLC v. Tunica County, Miss.

543 F.3d 221 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 2008

An uncertain right cannot be “a clearly established” right. Qualified immunity applies to the claim that Sheriff Hamp violated Due Process rights. … Unlike in the determination of qualified immunity for the Sheriff, the County cannot rely on there being no clearly established right when the Sheriff acted.

Estate of Davis Ex Rel. McCully v. City of North Richland Hills

406 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 11, 2005

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.”17 Qualified immunity is … violated clearly established law.

Alberto F. Morales v. James Haynes and Virginia Perez, Revenue Officers of Irs

890 F.2d 708 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 9, 1989

We hold that the plaintiffs have not shown that the defendants violated any “clearly established” right and that the defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. We therefore reverse. … established” as to deprive the defendant of his qualified immunity. 702 F.2d at 584 .

Blanca Arizmendi v. Brownsville Indep Sch Dist

919 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 26, 2019

probable cause for a different charge from that sought in the warrant, but Gabbert is entitled to qualified immunity because this was not clearly established at the time of his conduct. … But Arizmendi has not persuaded us that Gabbert’s actions were then illicit by clearly established law. Gabbert is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.