Case law

Bishop v. Arcuri

674 F.3d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2012

We also review a grant of qualified immunity de novo. … Qualified immunity protects public officers from suit if their conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

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 5 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

Betty Thompson Donald Thompson v. Upshur County, Tx, R.D. Cross, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Upshur County, Tx Paula Whorton, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Jailer, Upshur County Robert Cromley, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Lieutenant, Upshur County Jail, Betty Thompson Donald Thompson v. Upshur County, Tx, Eugene Tefteller, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff, Marion County, Tx

245 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 15, 2001

To ensure that qualified immunity serves its intended purpose, it is of paramount import, during step two, to define "clearly established law" at the proper level of generality. Anderson v. … Thus, the issue as to sheriff Cross's claim of qualified immunity is whether his policies were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.

Barbara S. Clanton v. Orleans Parish School Board

649 F.2d 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 6, 1981

We reverse the judgment of the district court on the issue of the defendants’ individual liability for backpay, concluding that the individual defendants established as a matter of law a qualified immunity defense. … the defense of qualified immunity forecloses their personal liability for attorneys’ fees.

Atkins v. Hopkins

137 F.4th 286 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 12, 2025

“[T]he denial of a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is a collateral order capable of immediate review.” Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 346 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (citing Mitchell v. … “Qualified immun- ity is a two-step process.” Sims, 894 F.3d at 638. First, we “ask[] whether the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights”; then, we ask whether “the right was clearly established.” Id.

Howard L. Wyatt v. Bill Cole, John Robbins, II

994 F.2d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 25, 1993

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “qualified immunity, as enunciated in [Harlow v. … On the other hand, given this emphasis on what private actors actually know, rather than what they should know, private defendants might establish probable cause and avoid liability even though a right was “clearly established

Dwight Harris v. Victoria Independent School District

336 F.3d 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 6, 1999

City of Columbus, Mississippi 989 F.2d 745, 750 (5th Cir.1993) (holding qualified immunity unavailable because there was no government interest to balance); Click v. … There will rarely be basis for a priori judgment that the termination or discipline of a public employee violated "clearly established" constitutional rights. Noyola, 846 F.2d at 1025 . (emphasis added).

Robert Lee Beck, Md, Dmd v. Texas State Board Of Dental Examiners

204 F.3d 629 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2000

In the alternative, the defendants assert that qualified immunity is applicable because the actions taken against Beck did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, and were not objectively unreasonable. 12 … Claims of qualified immunity are reviewed under a two-step analysis. The first question is whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Eriakha v. University of MS

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 9, 2026

from suit “unless their conduct violates a clearly established right.” 52 When a defendant “pleads qualified immunity and shows he is a governmental official whose position involves the exercise of discretion,” the burden … shifts to the plaintiff “to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” 53 A right is clearly established only when the constitutional question

Davis v. McKinney

518 F.3d 304 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 2008

Evaluating a claim for qualified immunity is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. Id.

Gonzales v. Dallas County Texas

249 F.3d 406 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 4, 2001

GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: The district court denied qualified immunity to these defendant-appellant Dallas County, Texas constables. … IV For the reasons set forth above, the district court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

Rodriguez v. Neeley

169 F.3d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1999

The district court granted Neeley’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims to money damages, finding Neeley was entitled to qualified immunity. … The bystanders argue that Neeley’s conduct in coordinating the “meeting” at the CSCD office was objectively unreasonable in light of the bystanders’ clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable

Rolf v. City of San Antonio

77 F.3d 823 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 4, 1996

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity “shields certain public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damage liability if ‘their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are … Accordingly, the district court erred by determining, at this stage in the litigation, that appellees, in their individual capacities, were entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Southard v. Texas Board of Criminal Justice

114 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 13, 1997

Strain asserted that he was entitled to qualified immunity because the facts alleged failed to state violations of clearly established constitutional rights. The court denied those motions. … Strain contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Fleming failed to raise a fact issue that Strain's conduct, objectively viewed, violated her clearly established rights.

Systems Contractors Corporation v. Orleans Parish School Board, Kenneth J. Ducote

148 F.3d 571 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 12, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy the protection of qualified immunity in § 1983 cases. 10 Officials are immune if their actions are “objectively reasonable” in the light of “clearly established … Gilley, the Supreme Court established a two-step analysis for qualified immunity cases. 12 First, we determine whether the plaintiff alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right under currently applicable

Shirley DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otto E. PASSMAN, Congressman of the United States, Defendant-Appellee

544 F.2d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 3, 1977

Davis’s complaint clearly meets the Snowden requirements. … Qualified Immunity The inapplicability of speech or debate protection does not foreclose Representative Passman from asserting the same qualified immunity available to other government officials. See generally Wood v.

Fisher v. Moore

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

The school officials sought dismissal of the § 1983 claim on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing that the state-created danger doctrine was not clearly established in this circuit when the underlying events occurred … “ha[s] not demonstrated a clearly established substantive due process right on the facts [she] allege[s].”14 The district court thus erred in denying qualified immunity to Appellants.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

165 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 1999

defendants were also entitled to qualified immunity. … Determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity is a two-step process requiring the court to determine (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and

Rexford Kipps, Carol Kipps and Kyle Kipps v. James Caillier, Ray Authement, Nelson J. Schexnayder, Jr. And Nelson Stokley

205 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 1, 2000

An issue was raised with respect to the panel majority’s qualified immunity analysis. … familial association does, in fact, exist and was clearly established at the time Kipps was fired.

Piazza v. Mayne

217 F.3d 239 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 2000

If the court finds that the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the court must then consider whether the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct was … deprives Mayne of qualified immunity.