Case law

Tamez v. City of San Marcos, Tex.

62 F.3d 123 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 23, 1995

"Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ... is clearly a matter of federal law; state procedural law is not directly controlling." Sorey, 849 F.2d at 962; accord Budinich v. … We look to state procedural rules "for what they reveal about the state's view on the substantive issue of whether qualified immunity is an immunity from suit or merely a defense to liability," Sorey, 849 F.2d at 962, because

Floyd v. City of Kenner

351 F. App'x 890 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 2009

“To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … of clearly established law.”

Sorey ex rel. Sorey v. Kellett

849 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 1988

Qualified immunity, the Court held, shared that characteristic of absolute immunity. … The court held that the commissioners were protected by qualified immunity because they had “no role in the roommate selection or supervision of ‘clients’,” but merely exercised discretionary authority over the establishment

Gutierrez v. City of San Antonio

139 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 8, 1998

The officers now bring an interlocutory appeal seeking dismissal or summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … IV Qualified immunity protects officials in the course of performance of their discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a “clearly established [federal] statutory

George M. Bishop v. State Bar of Texas

791 F.2d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 11, 1986

This argument is without merit; the record clearly establishes that Landin’s duties as counsel for the State Bar included the filing of such grievances. … Qualified or good faith immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 , 100 S.Ct. 1920 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980).

Jack R. Harper v. Arden Mays Merckle

638 F.2d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1981

Moreover, as the facts clearly establish, Harper did not visit Judge Merckle “in his official capacity.” … Instead, we instruct the trial judge to so charge the jury on retrial of this case, providing the defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity. V.

Stotter v. University of Texas at San Antonio

508 F.3d 812 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 5, 2007

If they do, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity unless the court finds that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the state actions at … To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Johnson v.

Carrie Sama v. Edward Hannigan

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 23, 2012

Callahan, we may analyze and resolve this issue under the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.20 Because Sama did not meet her burden of demonstrating Benoit’s and Hannigan’s conduct was not objectively … Sama had the burden to negate qualified immunity.

Martinez v. Hinojosa

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 4, 2026

As a result, the court held that Officer Hinojosa was entitled to qualified immunity, and all municipal liability was foreclosed. 4 Mr. … Qualified immunity, though, protects those government officials from liability under Section 1983, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Trammel v.

Walter SESSIONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RUSK STATE HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee

648 F.2d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 26, 1981

Unlike Title VII, Section 1981 contains no congressional waiver of the state’s eleventh amendment immunity. … The district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law do not clearly delineate the various steps in the proof of a Title VII claim.

Morgan v. Swanson

627 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 2011

IV We hold today that the principals are entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established law did not put the constitutionality of their actions beyond debate. … But the Court’s suggestion that generalizations can sometimes clearly establish the law was dicta; the Court did not rest its qualified-immunity decision on such a broad statement.

Saenz v. Heldenfels Bros.

183 F.3d 389 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 1999

DISCUSSION To prevail on § 1983 claim against a state official performing a discretionary function, and to overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that the officer violated “clearly … established . . .

Ivan Webb v. Town of Saint Joseph

925 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 24, 2019

As their § 1983 claim against Mayor Brown in his individual capacity is subject to his qualified immunity defense, they must show that his actions “were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the … immunity, which requires the Webbs to show “(1) that [he] violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Colvin v. LeBlanc

2 F.4th 494 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 2021

Qualified Immunity, Absolute Immunity, and Prescription Heck aside, Colvin also challenges the conclusions that (1) LeFeaux and Wade were entitled to qualified immunity; (2) Wade was entitled to absolute … Whether LeFeaux and Wade are entitled to qualified immunity is a question for the district court to consider on remand.

Gros v. City of Grand Prairie

209 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2000

judgment on his qualified immunity defense in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit brought by Danette JERRY E. … The district court granted We first must determine whether plaintiffs summary judgment for the City on qualified have alleged a violation of a clearly established immunity grounds.

James White v. Hezikiah Walker, and Town of Verona, Ms

932 F.2d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 11, 1991

We reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the officer, but affirm in all other respects. … the district court's holding that Officer Walker was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Petta v. Rivera

143 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 9, 1998

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). 13 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

Anthony Gibson v. Jeffrey Kilpatrick

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 2013

was clearly established. … Discussion To rebut a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Evett v. DETNTFF

330 F.3d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 12, 2003

Whether Graham is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. 22 Government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established … First, the plaintiff must allege the violation of a clearly established right.

Byrd v. Lamb

990 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2021

Agent Lamb and the local officers filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) raising the defense of qualified immunity. … “Our jurisdiction over qualified immunity appeals extends to ‘elements of the asserted cause of action’ that are ‘directly implicated by the defense of qualified immunity[,]’ including whether to recognize new Bivens