Case law

Zentgraf v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

492 F. Supp. 265 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 4, 1980

To qualify for exemption under § 1681(a)(4) the Corps of Cadets of Texas A & M University must meet the following prerequisites: (1) the Corps must qualify, pursuant to § 1681(c), as an “educational institution” within the … Federal regulations affecting ROTC programs clearly establish that the Commandant of an ROTC unit is responsible to the authorities of the host institution for conducting the program in accordance with institutional rules

McGinnis Ex Rel. McGinnis v. Union Pacific Railroad

612 F. Supp. 2d 776 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2009

Governmental immunity includes two distinct principles, immunity from suit and immunity from liability. Jones, 8 S.W.3d at 638 ; Fed. Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 405. … Liberty Mutual maintains that “legally obligated to pay” can only be established by a judgment against the insured, and since Metro *803 is immune from suit, this has not been established, and, until such point in time as

Thomas v. Board of Trustees of Galveston Independent School District

515 F. Supp. 280 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 16, 1981

, good faith immunity- In the context of a section 1983 action, qualified immunity is a defense and the burden of pleading it rests with the defendant. … such disregard of the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith.

Mauro v. Freeland

735 F. Supp. 2d 607 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 21, 2009

When the prosecutor functions as only an administrator or investigator and is not covered by absolute immunity, “[s]he is entitled only to qualified immunity.” Id. (citing Imbler, 96 S.Ct. at 995 n. 33). … Osborne, — U.S. —, 129 5.Ct. 2308, 2319, 174 L.Ed.2d 38 (2009). 47 .The defendants also assert that they are protected by qualified immunity and that Mauro’s claims for damages are barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act

Shaw v. TDCJ-CID

540 F. Supp. 2d 834 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 14, 2008

They further contend that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity from claims against them in their official capacities and they raise the defense of qualified immunity with regard to the claims against them in their … The defendants previously asserted qualified immunity and filed a motion *840 for a protective order in part pursuant to the defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity (Docket Entry No. 12), which this court granted.

Robinson v. Johnson

975 F. Supp. 950 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 25, 1996

immunity because Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a “clearly established constitutional right” and his actions were reasonable. … If a reasonable officer “could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed,” then Defendant is protected from suit by qualified immunity.

Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti

District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 10, 2021

Such clearly irrelevant language does not constitute an explicit waiver of immunity as required by the FSIA's § 1610(d)(1).”) … P’ship, 542 F.3d 43, 51 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[A Rule B] attachment should issue only if a plaintiff establishes four factors: (1) that the plaintiff has a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the defendant; (2) that the

Gonzalez v. United States

647 F. Supp. 2d 771 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 2, 2009

Standard Governing Qualified Immunity A federal official sued in his individual capacity may raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. See Petta v. Rivera, 143 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir.1998). … If the plaintiff shows this, a court then asks whether the right was clearly established. 3 Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Gilliam

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 30, 2026

contends that “Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their actions violated clearly established law and were unreasonable, objectively, or even subjectively unreasonable.” … “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from [civil] liability ‘unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Kimmel Ex Rel. Estate of Kimmel v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

267 F. Supp. 2d 646 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 23, 2002

The Court need not reach the qualified immunity issue, however, because Defendants *654 correctly assert that a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is warranted. … [on July 12, 1993] it was clearly established that a state actor creating a danger, knowing of that danger, and using his authority to create an opportunity for a third person to commit a crime that otherwise might not have

Pope v. Horgan

538 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 3, 1982

For, whether defendant is afforded an absolute immunity or a qualified immunity, she is immune in this case because, based on a review of the law and facts now before the court, this court is of the opinion that defendant … T.C. p. 9365 (S.D.Tex.1979) (District Director of IRS and Examining Officer entitled to qualified immunity); Dehoff v.

Jones v. Houston Independent School District

805 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 30, 1991

Second, the individual Defendants cannot be sued in their individual capacities due to the doctrine of qualified official immunity. See Tex.Educ.Code § 21.912(b) (Vernon 1987). … Third, the defamation claim is barred not only by the doctrine of immunity but also because in Texas employment references are entitled to qualified privilege.

Jones v. Houston Independent School District Board of Trustees

986 F. Supp. 2d 812 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 15, 2013

See Davis, 406 F.3d at 380 (qualified immunity protects government officials unless the official’s conduct was plainly incompetent or knowingly violated the plaintiffs clearly established rights); see authorities cited in … As a government official performing discretionary functions, Darden is immune from individual liability unless her conduct was plainly incompetent or knowingly violated Jones' clearly established rights.

Bishop v. City of Galveston

1 F. Supp. 3d 623 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 28, 2014

As noted, their arguments about governmental immunity are irrelevant because the City is not asserting immunity, but is challenging only Plaintiffs’ inability to assert a constitutionally protected property interest in the … It has also established the legality of the condition precedent, which Plaintiffs have failed to controvert.

Tellez v. Harris County Texas

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 4, 2025

Rogers contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity and thus, immune from suit. … In the current case, Rogers contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Sweeney

District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2026

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plausibly allege facts that show: (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation … Plaintiff must demonstrate that Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.

United States v. Pardue

294 F. 543 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 31, 1923

Ed. 1110 , it declared the effort of Congress to give a qualified immunity unconstitutional, and later, in Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591 , 16 Sup. Ct. 644, 40 L. … fact in cases of this kind, however, whether a witness testified voluntarily or upon compulsion, if a witness appears under a subpoena and is placed upon the stand by the government, the fact of compulsion is prima facie established

Fullen v. Galveston Independent School District

564 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 18, 2008

Hale additionally argues that she enjoys qualified immunity from plaintiffs claims and that she is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because plaintiff … See Foley, 355 F.3d at 337 (setting forth two-step process for analyzing assertion of qualified immunity). 2.

Anderson v. Valdez

293 F. Supp. 3d 636 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 14, 2017

The "basic steps" of the Fifth Circuit's qualified-immunity inquiry are well-established; relevant to this case, a plaintiff seeking to defeat qualified immunity must show (1) that the official violated a constitutional right … At this stage, Defendant is not also entitled to qualified immunity on the asserted grounds that "[n]o clearly established law required that [Defendant] recuse himself from the on-going discussions [with the other Justices

Foster v. City of Lake Jackson

813 F. Supp. 1262 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 25, 1993

Before considering the immunity issue, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v. … In this circuit, a section 1983 complaint alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right if it alleges that public officials wrongfully and intentionally concealed] information crucial to a person’s ability