Case law

Wright v. Houston Independent School District

393 F. Supp. 1149 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 5, 1975

The Texas cases which clearly establish the immunity of the school district rely solely upon concepts of governmental immunity, derived from theories of sovereign immunity and public policy. Braun v. … The court fails to see how it establishes the proposition that this is a situation in which sovereign immunity is applicable.

Salinas v. Ramirez

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 29, 2025

Jones, 619 F.2d 527, 536 (Sth Cir. 1981) (recognizing that, to establish their entitlement to qualified immunity on inmate Douthit’s false imprisonment claim, the jailers were required to “present evidence of objective … May 15, 2023) for the proposition that the right to timely release after completing sentence is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. Plaintiff has provided the incorrect case citation.

Adams v. Harris County, Texas

316 F. Supp. 938 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 30, 1970

But we perceive no sound reason for holding that a state has waived its immunity from suit where a federal law expressly grants a right of action, as in Parden, and denying such a waiver when civil liability clearly exists … Clearly, the court is applying the governmental immunity doctrine interchangeably with the Eleventh Amendment. 5 .

Martinez v. Harris County, Texas

District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 14, 2023

There are three ways to show a right is clearly established. … When faced with a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must identify clearly established law that would require intervention under similar circumstances. See Whitley v.

Breen v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

213 F. Supp. 2d 766 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 23, 2002

The Court need not reach the qualified immunity issue, however, because Defendants 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

Hill v. City of Houston

991 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 23, 1998

Such facts, if true, establish an actionable equal protection claim. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the Equal Protection Clause is DENIED. … Furthermore, in this case the HFD clearly used the equipment when it dispatched it to Ruth Hill’s home.

Owens Ex Rel. Schafer v. American Home Prod.

203 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 7, 2002

Here, Plaintiffs clearly did not witness and perceive the type of shocking accident contemplated by the bystander theory of recovery. … However, the Court's decision would remain the same even if Congressional intent was not clearly expressed.

Goodwin v. Collins

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 18, 2024

constitutional violation, he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law on that issue is not clearly established.! (Id. at 19-20). … Qualified Immunity Collins moves for summary judgment solely on the basis of the defense of qualified immunity.

North Star Steel Texas, Inc. v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc.

33 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 29, 1998

To qualify for immunity a defendant must establish that (1) it acted “pursuant to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy to displace competition with state regulation,” and (2) the state actively supervises … Active Supervision In order for Entergy to enjoy state action immunity it must also establish that the state actively supervises administration of its regulatory policy.

Range v. United States

245 B.R. 266 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 29, 1999

The bankruptcy court’s finding that the evidence in the case established that the Ranges wilfully attempted to evade or defeat their tax liability was not clearly erroneous. … The statute also establishes certain filing requirements, which can be superseded by procedures established by a rule of the court considering the application. Id. § 7430(e)(4)(A)(ii).

MALECHE v. Solis

692 F. Supp. 2d 679 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 11, 2010

The determination dated October 6, 2008, ruling the claimant did not qualify for Disaster Unemployment Assistance Benefits under Section 20 CFR 625.4, will be affirmed. … Press releases by the Defendant clearly are pro labor and do not reflect the positive role of the Entrepreneur and self-employed in America. 26 Plaintiffs assertions are not evidence that the defendant’s determination that

Ramos v. Erwin

District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 18, 2024

establish” constitutional rights for purposes of qualified immunity. … of qualified immunity.”

Stramaski v. Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 3, 2025

Because the Fifth Circuit went on to opine that “Stramaski’s claim would be barred by qualified immunity because she does not allege that Lawley violated a clearly established law,” the future of this case hinges on the … from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Donald Lynn Thompson, Jr. v. Matagorda County, et al.

District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 27, 2026

In any event, Gonzales is “shielded from liability for civil damages [under the qualified immunity doctrine] if [his] actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Indeed, Thompson does not seriously contest Riley’s qualified immunity in his response brief, arguing only that “the qualified immunity analysis is premature at this stage.” Dkt. 33 at 16.

Smith v. Linthicum

District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 14, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Eider v. Holloway, 510 U.S, 510, 512 (1994). … Such action would violate clearly established Eighth Amendment law. Defendant Smith is not entitled to a finding of qualified immunity at this juncture. IV.

Whittington v. United States

380 F. Supp. 2d 806 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 14, 2005

Although Plaintiffs acknowledge that Section 7422(a) *811 qualifies the waiver of sovereign immunity, they assert that refund actions under TEFRA constitute an exception to the requirement that a refund claim be made prior … Despite the provision under TEFRA calling for refunds to partners “without any requirement that the partner file a claim therefor,” Section 6230(d)(5) also clearly contemplates, that some refunds under TEFRA will not be made

Rogge ex rel. Rogge v. City of Richmond

995 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 31, 2014

Police officers, as state officials, have qualified immunity from Section 1983 suits for actions performed in the exercise of discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In order to overcome an officer’s assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff first must show that the officer violated a constitutional right. Hope v.

St. Joseph Hospital v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

573 F. Supp. 443 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 19, 1983

The above authorities clearly establish that providers are not the intended beneficiaries of the Medicaid program. While there are situations where a provider may have acquired some vested property interest {see e.g. … The immunity clearly extends beyond the state itself and encompasses state agencies, officers and employees whenever “the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state.” Ford Motor Co. v.

Canales v. Harris County

District Court, S.D. Texas · May 2, 2025

Rather, courts may find qualified immunity based solely on a plaintiff s failure to clear the clearly established hurdle. See also Joseph on behalf of Est. of Joseph v. … Plaintiff attempts to overcome the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry by alleging that “[t]he law is clearly established that an individual has the right to protection.” (Doc. No. 12 at 17).

Abogado v. International Marine Carriers

890 F. Supp. 626 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 21, 1995

IMC first argues that it is not a proper party to this action because the SEALIFT INDIAN OCEAN is owned by the United States and qualifies as a public vessel. … Clearly, where the government has not waived its right of sovereign immunity, it cannot be sued.