Case law

Jefferson v. Ysleta Independent School District

817 F.2d 303 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 1987

Finding that the pleadings allege conduct which “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow v. … Analysis The defense of qualified immunity protects a public official from liability in the performance of his duties unless he violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of another known to or knowable

Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Government

279 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2002

They maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Ms. Cozzo’s claims because interpretation of the TRO to require her eviction was clearly within Captain People’s discretionary authority. … Cozzo clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, we are required to address only the second pro ng of the qualified immunity test, that is, whether Deputy Joiner’s actions were objectively reasonable.

Jennings v. Patton

635 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2011

B The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity, inquiring: (1) whether the facts that the plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged

Brandy Hamilton v. Nathaniel Turner

845 F.3d 659 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 2017

Kindred moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the incident, bystander liability was not clearly established in the Fifth Circuit in cases not involving excessive … DISCUSSION We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of qualified immunity “only to the extent that the appeal concerns the purely legal question whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Fisher v. Moore

62 F.4th 912 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 16, 2023

The school officials sought dismissal on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing that the state-created danger doctrine was not clearly established in this circuit when the underlying events occurred. … “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

Hare Ex Rel. Hare v. City of Corinth

135 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1998

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s … The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident;

Nieto v. San Perlita Independent School District

894 F.2d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 1990

the plaintiff’s clearly established right to protected speech. … Consequently, the defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right secured to Nieto. They are therefore entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal from this suit.

Gibson v. Rich

44 F.3d 274 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 30, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In suits alleging illegal arrest, the qualified immunity determination turns on whether a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer

Ramirez v. Granado

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 2025

’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.’” … ) “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Kipps v. Caillier

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 1999

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even if defendants violated Kipps's clearly established constitutional right, they are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable.

Wernecke v. Garcia

452 F. App'x 479 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 7, 2011

Qualified immunity shields from civil liability government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … that right was clearly established.

William Brinsdon v. McAllen Independent Sch Dist

832 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 9, 2016

To establish that qualified immunity does not apply, Brinsdon must prove that Santos or Cavazos (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … On the compelled speech claim, the district court granted summary judgment to Santos and Cavazos under step two of the qualified immunity inquiry, that is, no clearly established right was violated.

Petta v. Rivera

133 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 16, 1998

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). 12 We must take care to identify the relevant "clearly established law" at the proper level of generality so that the defense of qualified immunity … Regarding the applicability of qualified immunity, we merely observed that "[u]se of excessive force in making an arrest violates clearly established rights, and the doctrine of qualified immunity therefore does not shield

Tamez v. City of San Marcos

118 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1997

"clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the defendant must both plead and establish his entitlement to immunity. Gomez v.

Stapleton v. Lozano

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 14, 2025

a violation of clearly-established law.” … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Cope v.

Joseph Walton, as Next Friend of Christopher Walton, a Minor v. Alma Alexander, Alma Alexander

44 F.3d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1995

City of Houston, 14 F.3d 1056, 1060 (5th Cir.1994) (finding summary judgment proper on qualified immunity grounds when no constitutional infringement established); Quives v. … immunity from this lawsuit if the constitutional allegations were not clearly established law at the *1306 time of the sexual abuse.

Kitchen Ex Rel. the Estate of Kitchen v. Dallas County

759 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2014

earliest possible stage in litigation.’” 8 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 … As a general matter, moreover, this rule constituted clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity in this case.

Sanchez v. Nunemaker

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 2026

and that defeat a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” … Clearly Established Law We next address whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Harmon, 16 F.4th at 1163.

Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Department

228 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 2, 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, … As noted above, we have observed that at least since 1989, it has been clearly established that officials will only be liable for episodic acts or omissions resulting in the violation of a detainee’s clearly established

Dakshesh Parikh v. Citizens Medical Center

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2014

Appellants argue that the alleged violations of the AKS and Stark Law were not clearly established at the time of the instant offenses. … This clearly established statutory right is precisely what Relators alleged Appellants to have violated.