Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filterstxsd

2,190 results

0.37s

  • Hall v. Ingle

    District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 22, 2022

    Qualified Immunity The defendants claim entitlement to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs claims for use of excessive force. Plaintiff bears the burden to negate the defense of qualified immunity. See Hanks v. … To negate the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish that (1) an officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and that (2) the conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Guzman v. Warden Fuentez

    District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2022

    “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” White v. … ’s conduct violated clearly established law.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Harris v. Galveston County Texas

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

    In response, Buckley and Healy have raised qualified immunity. … See Cope, 3 F.4th at 204 (explaining plaintiff’s two-pronged burden to overcome qualified immunity).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Hicks v. Collier

    District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 18, 2025

    Holmes’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity, (D.E. 38). Jd. at 1. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. … Accordingly, the Court DENIES □□ temintes motion without prejudice to their raising a qualified immunity defense later in these proceedings. (D.E. 38).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Severance v. Patterson

    485 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 2, 2007

    Clearly, the federal Constitution places limits on the defendants’ enforcement of the public’s beach easement. See, e.g., Mikeska v. … The OBA itself does not establish or create the easement.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • James v. Smith

    District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 17, 2020

    Qualified Immunity Arzalia Smith, Ericka Davis, and Shelly Martin (“TDFPS Defendants”) assert the defense of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Borden v. Fort Bend County

    District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2021

    Moreover, the individual FBC Defendants assert qualified immunity. … objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the violation.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Thompson v. Harris County Sheriff's Office

    District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2021

    Qualified immunity shields officers from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … right, and(2) whether _ the unlawfulness of his conduct was clearly established at the time.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Baber v. Harris County Precinct 4 Sheriff

    District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 27, 2023

    the doctrine of qualified immunity. … that the remaining defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, Kizzee—as a similarly situated defendant—would likewise be entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Vela v. Lewis

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

    Lewis has invoked a qualified immunity defense in his Motion to Dismiss. The qualified immunity analysis is two-fold. … Accordingly, Vela’s right to be free from excessive force was clearly established at the time of the incident, and Lewis is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. b.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Bryant v. Dayton Independent School District

    District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 11, 2021

    “Once the defense of qualified immunity has been asserted, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the … The Bryants include this wholesale challenge to qualified immunity in their response “to assure that, if legally necessary, the qualified immunity abrogation or limitation issue has been preserved.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • In Re Nueces County, Texas, Road District No. 4

    174 F. Supp. 846 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 10, 1959

    There is a distinction between immunity from process, which goes to the question of jurisdiction, and immunity from liability, which deals with the substantive law of admiralty. 7 Where the Court has jurisdiction, as here … Among these powers and duties are (1) the establishment of precincts and justice courts; (2) establishment of ‘‘public ferries whenever the public interest may require;” (3) the laying out, establishment, change and discontinuance

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Stokes v. Lamb

    District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 22, 2023

    To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that defendants violated his constitutional rights and that the rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Cleveland v. … Because no constitutional violation is established, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Harris v. Cantu

    81 F. Supp. 3d 566 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 26, 2015

    Thus, the principal legislative objective to reward honorably discharged qualified Texas veterans with educational benefits may continue unabated. … Justice O'Connor concurred in *572 the judgment, writing that the statute should be invalidated under the right to travel, which she based in the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

    Reversed on other grounds by Keith Harris v. Texas Veterans Commission, 827 F.3d 359 (2016)Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Avitts v. Amoco Production Co.

    840 F. Supp. 1116 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 4, 1994

    Two of the common-law exceptions are clearly inapplicable to the case at bar: where a party has willfully violated a court order, see Toledo Scale Co. v. … No. 96-481 (1980); hence, the theory of this exception did not apply to government defendants which enjoyed sovereign immunity to money damages. 2 .

    Reversed on other grounds by Avitts v. Amoco Production Co., 53 F.3d 690 (1995)Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Rivera v. Harris County

    District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 1, 2022

    Diaz asserted qualified immunity in each of his thirteen motions for summary judgment. Dkts. 104–16. … Diaz argued in his thirteen motions that the case should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, and the plaintiffs argued in their thirteen responses that Diaz’s motions should be denied because clearly established

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Ballas v. Symm

    351 F. Supp. 876 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 13, 1972

    That decision is clearly res judicata to at least six members of the proposed class here. A. … Any qualified student voter, like any other qualified voter, may exercise his franchise in the precinct and county of his bona fide residence.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Richie v. Charbula

    District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 6, 2023

    “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials . . . from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … Orsak’s erroneous attempt to file Richie’s pleading was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Clemens v. McNamee

    608 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 12, 2009

    Clemens must therefore establish McNamee’s minimum contacts with Texas for each allegation of defamation. B. … Thus, when the transferee venue is not clearly more convenient than the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the plaintiffs choice should be respected.”

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Santos v. City of Houston, Tex.

    852 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 31, 1994

    The State has clearly authorized the City to regulate its streets, and the Court finds that such authorization is sufficient to satisfy the Parker requirement of “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” state policy … Thus, the City is not immune from liability under the Parker doctrine.

    Declined to follow by Powers v. Harris, 379 F.3d 1208 (2004)Cited 10 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.