Case law

Rogillio v. Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co.

446 F. Supp. 423 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 31, 1977

The large number of jobs, people and hiring decisions involved in those cases clearly indicated a statistical disparity. … only, the Court concludes that Plaintiff was the more qualified of the two applicants (See Findings 17 and 18) and therefore that she has established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Temkin v. Shoemaker

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

Further, if any claims were allowed under Bivens, qualified immunity would shield the federal agents from suit because Defendants did not violate any clearly established right. /d at 9. … Further, Plaintiffs argue the agents are not entitled to qualified immunity. /d. at 11.

Rockbit Industries U.S.A., Inc. v. Baker Hughes, Inc.

802 F. Supp. 1544 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 24, 1991

Dismissal is also appropriate if the plaintiff cannot establish standing to bring a claim.’ Dickens v. Lewis, 750 F.2d 1251 (5th Cir.1984). B. … Rockbit’s bare pleading of sham cannot overcome the inference that Baker Hughes’ state court action qualifies for Noerr-Pen-nington immunity.

Teague Ex Rel. C.R.T. v. Texas City Independent School District

348 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 3, 2004

Establishing the liability of a municipality or local governmental entity under § 1983 is a “difficult task.” Mossey v. City of Galveston, 94 F.Supp.2d 793, 794 (S.D.Tex.2000). … If Defendant does have such policies, then liability would be clearly appropriate.

Smith v. Equitrac Corp.

88 F. Supp. 2d 727 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 10, 2000

The “Clearly Better Qualified” Standard Equitrac argues that “[t]o preclude summary judgment on his discriminatory failure to promote claim in the Fifth Circuit, Smith must produce evidence showing that he was ‘clearly better … May 5, 1998) (rejecting defendant’s argument that plaintiff is required to show that he was “clearly better qualified.”).

Lara v. Kempthorne

673 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 25, 2009

A plaintiff may create a fact issue by providing or identifying evidence that he was “clearly better qualified” than the employee chosen for the position, not merely “similarly qualified.” Sabzevari v. … Texas Children’s Hospital Select Plan, 167 Fed.Appx. 377, 383 (5th Cir.2006) (applying the “clearly better qualified” standard, post-Ash). 4 .

Escolona v. TDCJ

District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 4, 2022

(4) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage because Plaintiff has not alleged any violation of clearly established law. … , they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to these personal capacity claims.

Reyes v. Texas Ezpawn, L.P.

459 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 28, 2006

that the plaintiff clearly had to exercise discretion in managing the bakery. 131 F.Supp.2d at 868 . … The regulations clearly dictate that courts must examine an employee’s actual activities in order determine whether he qualifies for exemption and mere reliance upon general job descriptions is insufficient to satisfy that

Wilson v. Cockrell

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

Wilson then contends that Deputy Cockrell is not entitled to qualified immunity as the requirement of probable cause is clearly established, but voluntarily dismisses his Fifth Amendment and official-capacity claims against … Courts apply a two-part test to determine whether qualified immunity is available: (1) whether “the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Abrams v. Baylor College of Medicine

581 F. Supp. 1570 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 5, 1984

The evidence clearly establishes that both Plaintiffs met the objective criteria set forth immediately above during times material to this lawsuit. 25. … The Plaintiffs have established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) they sought positions in the King Faisal program; (2) they were fully qualified to participate in the program; (3) their requests to participate

Greater Houston Civic Council v. Mann

440 F. Supp. 696 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 8, 1977

Clearly, it is not enough to prove a mere disparity between the number of minority residents and the number of minority representatives. … The burden of proof is clearly upon the proponent of disestablishment. Whitcomb v. Chavis, supra; White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 , 93 S.Ct. 2332 , 37 L.Ed.2d 314 . White v.

Arceneaux v. Klein Oak ISD

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 15, 2020

of qualified immunity based on procedural developments in the litigation” instead of considering “what was known to the individual defendants at the time.” … 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

Oliveria v. Jersey Village

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

With respect to each of these claims, Officer Defendants assert a qualified immunity defense. Id. at 3. … Therefore, the applicability of qualified immunity to Oliveria’s Fourth Amendment claims is not before the Court.

Tinoco v. City of Hidalgo, Texas

District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 18, 2023

Qualified Immunity The Court need not consider the Officer Defendants’ defense of qualified immunity considering its determination that Tinoco has not demonstrated that they violated … To be sure, even if a violation had occurred, that right must have been ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct” to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. Whitley v.

Texas v. United States

86 F. Supp. 3d 591 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 16, 2015

The DHS unilaterally established the parameters for DAPA and determined that it would not enforce the immigration laws as they apply to millions of individuals — those that qualify for DAPA and surprisingly even those that … The question is whether the rule establishes a “binding norm.” Id. at 596 . The President’s pronouncement quoted above clearly sets out that the criteria are binding norms.

United States v. Castro-Coello

474 F. Supp. 2d 853 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 6, 2007

By his own admission, therefore, he qualifies for the enhanced felony provision of § 844(a). … The USSG clearly accounted for the possibility that some offenses may qualify as both drug trafficking offenses and drug trafficking crimes. In that case, the greater aggravated felony enhancement would apply.

Jones v. Lumpkin

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 29, 2023

Because the Eleventh Amendment protects the states’ sovereign immunity, federal courts lack jurisdiction over suits against a state for money damages unless the state has waived its immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated … a violation of a constitutional right”; second, the court must determine “whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.”

Lee v. Brokenberry

District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 19, 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 of which a reasonable … Once qualified immunity has been invoked, the plaintiff bears the burden to “rebut the defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law and that genuine

Doe v. Marshall

459 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 16, 1978

He is a qualified varsity football player who performed as a defensive lineman during the 1977 season at Friendswood High School. 5. … Under 29 U.S.C. § 794 , 29 U.S.C. § 706 (6) and 45 CFR § 84.3 (1)(B), [John Doe] is clearly a handicapped individual.

Marsaw v. Trailblazer Health Enterprises, L.L.C.

192 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2002

As such, APRO’s claim was not collateral, and subject matter jurisdiction was lacking. 10 The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Affiliated clearly governs the instant case. … Accordingly, both Defendants are entitled to federal immunity. 8 .