Case law

Smith v. Smith

154 F.R.D. 661 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 10, 1994

There is no question that the doctrine of privilege or immunity from testifying has been narrowly proscribed.” In re Dinnan, 661 F.2d 426, 429 (5th Cir. … Another is an apprehension that qualified individuals will not serve as mediators out of concern for being required to testify. See Maine Cent.

John and Jane Doe 1 v. Rockwall Independent School District

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 26, 2024

“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.” Brown v. … Brown, 623 F.3d at 253.4 Additionally, “[i]f the defendant’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, the court then asks whether qualified immunity is still appropriate because the defendant’s actions

Patton v. Adesa Texas, Inc.

985 F. Supp. 2d 818 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 4, 2013

While critical evaluations solicited from employees can be personal opinions, that holding does not immunize employees who make false accusations without a factual basis. 2 In other words, Miller protects as free expression … If Patton’s allegations are proven, there would be no qualified privilege because the statements were allegedly made maliciously. C.

White v. Mills

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 1, 2024

Qualified Immunity The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 14 at 19. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights.

Keeter v. Lumpkin, Director TDCJ-CID

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 28, 2025

Qualified Immunity A governmental employee who is sued under § 1983 may assert qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to liability. White v. … Even if an official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reason- able under the circumstances.

Amaru v. Rhome Police Department

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 18, 2025

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … For the purposes of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that a lawful traffic stop requires reasonable suspicion of a legal violation. See, e.g., Terry, 392 U.S. at 20; Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d at 430.

Reeves v. Carson

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 5, 2021

The purpose of qualified immunity is to protect government officials from suit and liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … established law at the time of the conduct in question.14 This is a high hurdle to overcome because qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”15

Winder v. Gallardo

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2023

Deciding whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity requires a court to apply the two-pronged analysis established in Saucier v. Katz. 533 U.S. 194 (2001). … Conversely, an officer’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, considering clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent that the officer’s conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right

Reeves v. Carson

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 29, 2020

The purpose of qualified immunity is to protect government officials from suit and liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … once a government official asserts the defense of qualified immunity the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defense is not available.7 A plaintiff seeking to defeat qualified immunity must show genuine

Thompson v. City of Dallas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 31, 2024

Thompson did not respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and as a result, he presented no evidence on his own that would defeat qualified immunity’s clearly- established prong. Report II 13. … Thompson to carry his burden as it relates to qualified immunity’s clearly-established prong. Report II 24 (citation omitted). IV.

Dallas Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Dallas

885 F. Supp. 915 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 20, 1995

Defendant Dodd Miller initially asserted that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … However, the Joint Pretrial Order reveals that he is only being sued in his official capacity and therefore qualified immunity is no longer an issue. 8 . See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). 9 .

Brown v. Kaufman County

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 27, 2022

Further, it is well-established and ‘“clearly proper in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion [that a court may] take judicial notice of matters of public record.”’ Funk v. … Although Plaintiffs argue that Judge Blair is not protected by “absolute or qualified immunity,” they completely ignore that qualified immunity is not an issue raised or asserted in Judge Blair’s motion to dismiss, their

Navigant Consulting, Inc. v. Wilkinson

220 F.R.D. 467 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 29, 2004

Only those few that contain pure legal advice clearly are privileged. … Great American Insurance Cos., 123 F.R.D. 198, 201 (M.D.N.C.1988) (work product doctrine is merely a qualified immunity from discovery “not having an intrinsic value outside the litigation arena”).

Lane v. United States

843 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 17, 1993

Instead, she argues that the government is estopped, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, from relying on its immunity under the FTCA. … Weinberger, 546 F.2d 477, 481 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 937 , 97 S.Ct. 2648 , 53 L.Ed.2d 255 (1977) (“Even detrimental reliance on misinformation ... will not excuse a failure to qualify for benefits under the

Aguilar

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 3, 2026

The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. …  Was “the right at issue … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged misconduct”? Morrow v.

Dudley v. Gonzales

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 15, 2024

Qualified Immunity. The Officer Defendants also seek to dismiss Dudley’s claims based upon their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Because the pleadings sufficiently allege an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the Officer Defendants’ qualified immunity defense fails at this stage of the proceedings.

Littlefield v. Forney Independent School District

108 F. Supp. 2d 681 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 3, 2000

In each of the motions, the individual Defendant school officials assert the defense of qualified immunity and seek dismissal on that basis as well. … Qualified Immunity When the defense of qualified immunity is asserted against a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the initial inquiry is whether a constitutional violation has occurred. Siegert v.

Horace v. City of Richardson Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 5, 2023

And the established procedure under which courts must address qualified immunity, once asserted, “prevents a defendant entitled to immunity from being compelled to bear the costs of discovery and other pre-trial burdens … That is, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit “has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development

Ortez v. Wise County Sheriff's Department

District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 20, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendant Sartor seeks judgment on the basis that she is entitled to qualified immunity from Ortez’s claims of a constitutional violation. … “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

United States v. Texas Education Agency

138 F.R.D. 503 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 11, 1991

Under the Civil Rights Act certain public officials may plead some form of *511 immunity. The immunity is not a defense, it is an entitlement. … Questions were raised about whether or not he qualified as an expert. During an overnight recess the parties were to find some case law which would prove he was or was not an expert qualified to testify.