Case law

Morgan v. Swanson

627 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 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.

Surgical Care Center of Hammond v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish

171 F.3d 231 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 1999

Stat. §§ 45:1051 et seq., which establishes the hospital service districts as political subdivisions of the State of Louisiana. See id. § 46:1064(A). … Strictly speaking, then, Parker immunity is an inapt description, for its parentage differs from the qualified and absolute immunities of public officials.

Joe Wallace v. Michael E. Wellborn

204 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 2000

To establish that the agents are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Wallace must satisfy a three-part test. First, the plaintiff must allege the deprivation of a constitutional right. … The district court held that Wallace had no clearly established constitutional right to a prior adversarial hearing, and the agents were entitled to qualified immunity. 10 Wallace argues that this case is different than Heller

Kathy Dyer v. City of Mesquite Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 9, 2020

clearly established law.’” … Turning to prong two of the qualified immunity standard, we ask whether there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether “the unlawfulness of the [Officers’] conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Dextric Williams v. City of Cleveland, Mississippi

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 2013

Overcoming qualified immunity requires showing that (1) an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier v. … Addressing Saucier’s second prong, we find that the officers did not violate a right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

LaVergne v. Stutes

82 F.4th 433 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 2023

immunity and prescription. … On remand, the district court directed the parties to file supplemental memoranda addressing qualified immunity and prescription and referred the matter to a magistrate judge.

John Junior Dayse v. George Schuldt, Chief of Police

894 F.2d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 15, 1990

ISSUE 3: Dayse contends that Officers Manning and Boteler arrested him without probable cause, and they were not entitled to qualified immunity. … The officers were entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability if their conduct in arresting Dayse was objectively reasonable. Malley v.

Laurel G. Weir v. Charles Muller

527 F.2d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 25, 1976

We note, however, that if the district court should hold that the complaint states a cause of action, an evidentiary hearing will probably be necessary to resolve the factual issues on which the qualified immunity doctrine … for further proceedings . . . because ‘the scope of that immunity will necessarily be related to facts as yet not established’ below”.

Jackson v. Duff

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2025

Defendants moved to dismiss, invoking qualified immun- ity (“QI”). The district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and the QI defense asserted therein. Defendants appeal. … established law.”

Kennedy v. City of Arlington, Texas

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

The magistrate judge therefore held that qualified immunity applied and recommended dismissing all claims against the officers and the City. … The second prong requires that the unlawfulness of the conduct be “clearly established at the time” of the alleged misconduct. Ibid.

Juarez v. Aguilar

666 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 23, 2011

Appellants sought dismissal based on qualified immunity. … As long as the officials received fair notice that their conduct violated the litigant’s rights, the right was clearly established. See id.

Deville v. Marcantel

567 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 1, 2009

The officers raised qualified immunity as a defense. … Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 excessive force claims. C.

Israel Escobar v. Lance Montee

895 F.3d 387 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 11, 2018

And the court found that such force, in the face of sur- render, is clearly established as violating the Fourth Amendment. Montee appealed, claiming QI. … To overcome QI, Escobar must show (1) “a violation of an actual consti- tutional right,” and (2) that “the right was clearly established at the time of violation.” Id. We may address either prong first. Pearson v.

John C. Walter v. Ruben M. Torres

917 F.2d 1379 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 29, 1990

On the other hand, one defendant in the case was held to have qualified immunity because he was charged with “failure to establish adequate rules and policies for preliminary parole revocation hearings,” which, as an administrative … activity, afforded only qualified immunity.

Dale Schaper v. City of Huntsville, Gene Pipes and Hank Eckhardt

813 F.2d 709 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 6, 1987

The reason for this exception is that qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, which includes protection from the burdens of broad-reaching discovery. Id. at 524 , 105 S.Ct. at 2815 . … court has denied summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions

Mayfield v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

529 F.3d 599 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2008

The district court held that both sovereign and qualified immunity prevented Mayfield from pursuing his claims. … First, we consider the district court’s conclusions as to sovereign and qualified immunity.

Natasha Whitley v. John Hanna

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 28, 2013

Therefore, 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’ at the time of the challenged … “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

Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc. v. Gunn

81 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 10, 1996

“In assessing qualified immunity, we engage in a two-step analysis. First, we determine whether a plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right under the current state of the law.” … Because the City of Houston is not entitled to the benefit of qualified immunity, Babb v. Dorman, 33 F.3d 472, 475 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994), Meadowbriar need not allege the violation of a clearly established right.

Richardson v. Oldham

12 F.3d 1373 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 28, 1994

Defendant Harrell and the "Qualified Immunity" Question The Richardsons have sued Harrell in his individual capacity. … "Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from personal liability for discretionary acts which do not violate well-established law".34 Harrell has qualified immunity if his actions "could reasonably have been thought

Michael Toney v. Rissie Owens

779 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 26, 2015

“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’ at the time of violation.’” … Accordingly, because Toney has not established a violation of his constitutional rights, the district court correctly granted qualified immunity to Appellees sued in their individual capacities.