Case law

Benavides v. Harris County, Texas

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2024

“The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: whether an official’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff; and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … The first prong of the qualified immunity analysis is governed by current law, while the second prong is governed by the law as it was clearly established at the time of the conduct in question. Petta v.

Elizondo v. Hinote

District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 7, 2024

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability to the extent that their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly … CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW The second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is whether the officer violated “clearly established” law. Brewer v.

Norman v. Harris County,Texas

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 5, 2024

They argue that they are protected by qualified immunity. They contend that their actions did not violate Norman’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Here, qualified immunity does not aid the deputies. Their conduct if true, was egregious and violated clearly established federal constitutional rights.

Morgan v. Freshour

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 20, 2022

Because “the law was not clearly established in 2015 when Chapman served the instanter subpoena on Cotropia,” Chapman was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. … Chapman again raises qualified immunity. This time, Chapman does not dispute that the law was clearly established.

Canales v. Harris County

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 25, 2024

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 person would have … 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.

Gagne v. City of Galveston

671 F. Supp. 1130 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 19, 1987

His failure to implement any suicide screening procedures did not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Transcript record 42 (citing Harlow v. … Officer James Putnal was dismissed on the ground of qualified immunity. Gagne v.

Carmona v. The City of Brownsville

District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 6, 2024

“The first step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established federal constitutional (or federal statutory) right.” Thompson v. … In determining whether the law was clearly established, a court cannot simply “define clearly established law at a high level of generality.”

Benfer v. City Of Baytown, Texas

District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 4, 2023

Rather, courts may find qualified immunity based solely on plaintiff's failure to clear the clearly established hurdle. … The “clearly-established” prong of qualified immunity has undergone substantial interpretive changes during the past years, particularly in the Fifth Circuit.

Upshaw v. Alvin Independent School District

31 F. Supp. 2d 553 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 8, 1999

Plaintiffs evidence clearly fails the second prong of the test, thus the Court need not analyze Defendants’ alternative and meritorious arguments including qualified immunity and failure to establish a causal connection. … Upshaw has therefore failed as a matter of law to establish that she was forced to resign or even that she would lose future employment.

Monroe v. AMI Hospitals of Texas, Inc.

877 F. Supp. 1022 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 31, 1994

Leachman also confirmed the adequacy of the Hospital’s pre-established screening criteria for pacemaker insertion. Dr. Monroe was informed of these determinations. … Under HCQIA, “a professional review action must be taken ... after adequate notice and hearing procedures are afforded to the physician involved” in order to qualify for immunity. 42 U.S.C. § 11112 (a)(3). Dr.

Blackmon v. American Home Products Corp.

267 F. Supp. 2d 667 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 8, 2003

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.

Alaniz

District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 1, 2025

“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 … was objectively unreasonable in light of that then clearly established law.”

Shefeik v. Goliad County

District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 3, 2020

then clearly established law.” … Because the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendants’ use of force was clearly excessive or clearly unreasonable, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Salinas v. City of Houston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 30, 2023

This claim implicates qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Espinal v. City Of Houston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 26, 2023

When sued in their individual capacities, government officials are shielded by qualified immunity to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … .° To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show: (x) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged

McWashington v. Rodgers

District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 15, 2025

Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A - plaintiff seeking to rebut qualified immunity at this stage must allege: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Jones v. Petty Ray Geophysical Geosource, Inc.

722 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 27, 1989

Immunity Act 28 U.S.C. § 1602 , et seq. … For this Court to assume jurisdiction over Sudan under § 1605(a)(2), it must answer a series of five questions favorably to the plaintiff: (1) Does the conduct the action is based upon or related to qualify as “commercial

Johnson v. Texas Department of Corrections

373 F. Supp. 1108 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 11, 1974

However, before the Court can investigate whether the TDC may invoke sovereign immunity or whether it has been waived under state law, the jurisdiction of this Court must be clearly demonstrated. … It is well established that a State cannot be made a party defendant in a federal district court by a private litigant based upon diversity of citizenship. State Highway Commission of Wyoming v.

Corinthia Williams v. Deputy Brian Meyer, in his individual capacity

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 15, 2026

Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Williams cannot establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to prong one of Deputy Meyer’s qualified immunity defense.

Alcala v. Texas Webb County

620 F. Supp. 2d 795 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 3, 2009

See e.g., Hohman, 6 S.W.3d at 776 . *804 Moreover, when the Texas Legislature has waived immunity regarding other state statutes in the past, it has done so clearly and unambiguously. … (finding that “the law is settled that the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives governmental immunity for the governmental entities that are statutorily defined as employers”); Sauls v.