Case law

Berry v. Texas Woman's University

District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 25, 2021

on qualified immunity[.]” … “[G]eneral propositions of law defined at ‘high levels of generality’ are insufficient to define clearly established law for purposes of defeating qualified immunity.” Perniciaro v.

Hudson v. Vasquez

941 S.W.2d 334 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 6, 1997

In order to establish the “good faith” element of his claim to summary judgment based on official immunity, Hudson was required to prove that a reasonably prudent police officer could have believed that the force used was … The state law standard for analyzing the “good faith” element of official immunity is “derived substantially from the test that has emerged under federal immunity law for claims of qualified immunity in section 1983 cases

City of Houston v. Catrennia Foreman Sauls, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Dwayne Foreman, And Tristena Christian, as Next Friend of D.F., a Minor

Texas Supreme Court · May 10, 2024

. § 1983 “unequivocally negated the original interpretive premise for qualified immunity”); Zadeh, 928 F.3d at 479-81 (Willett, J., concurring) (criticizing the “clearly established law” standard). … See Chambers, 883 S.W.2d at 657 (although “federal immunity may be conferred at the summary judgment stage by the court’s finding that the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established,” “[n]o analogous threshold

Jones v. Collin College

District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 25, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suit “unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” DePree v. … ” of qualified immunity); Zuniga v.

GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Moore

829 S.W.2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 14, 1992

First, the evidence does not clearly establish that GAB was an agent of the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool. … We are not persuaded that GAB is entitled to official or governmental immunity. The trial court committed no error in refusing to grant a directed verdict on the basis of governmental immunity.

in Re the State of Texas, Ex. Rel. Joe D. Gonzales, District Attorney, Bexar County

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 28, 2019

clearly controlling legal principles.” … See Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 (“an issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established.”)

Brooks v. Taylor County

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 21, 2020

Catre, 77 F.3d 116, 120 (5th Cir. 1996) (“Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the officials violated clearly established law.”). … Should Brooks elect to file an amended complaint and Rule 7(a) reply that is “tailored” to the officers’ assertions of qualified immunity, such filings are due no later than 020), published decisions can clearly establish

Gonzales v. Dankel

District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 12, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. Johnston, 14 F.3d at 1059. … “Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Hernandez v. Tex.

Neri v. City of San Benito, Texas

District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 22, 2024

In his Motion to Dismiss, Stansbury pleads qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 17, pp. 3- 4. Resultingly, it is Neri who bears the burden of establishing that qualified immunity is inappropriate. … Given the above, Stansbury is entitled to the protections of qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law that put him on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional.

Memorial Hermann Hospital System D/B/A Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital v. Jewell Hayden

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jun 17, 2014

Mar. 28, 2014) (“Generally, waiver presents a question of fact, but ‘when the facts and circumstances are admitted or clearly established, the question [of waiver] becomes one of law.’”) … To limit the rights that may be waived only to those where the law clearly establishes an ability to prevail is to demand too much.

Terrell v. Harris County

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 6, 2022

Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 169 (5th Cir. 2009) (an off-duty officer responding to a traffic violation was not entitled to qualified immunity because the officer allegedly violated clearly established law). … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Ramirez v. Killian

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2022

The qualified-immunity analysis requires that a right be “clearly established.” See id. … violated clearly established law.”

Hamilton v. The City of Wilmer Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 1, 2023

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must plead facts: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the … “To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Brown v.

Thompson v. City of Dallas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 24, 2024

“The reasonableness of the official’s conduct and the degree to which the particular right in question was clearly established are thus merged into one issue for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.” … And, if evidence did, Thompson has not carried his burden as to qualified immunity’s clearly established prong to the extent that he relies on “Cole v.

Medina, Hector Rolando

475 S.W.3d 291 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 4, 2015

Is the State, in a post-conviction evidentiary hearing on a writ of habeas corpus, clearly prohibited from calling the writ applicant to testify— under a grant of both use and derivative-use immunity — about whether he was … We have recently recognized that “an issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established.”

Timpa v. The City of Dallas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 6, 2020

Adherence to the Fifth Circuit’s qualified immunity analysis in Pratt, as well as the Supreme Court’s frequent exhortation “not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality,” means that Gutierrez does … Because there is no clearly established law holding unconstitutional restraints analogous to the Defendants’ restraint of Timpa, the Court holds that qualified immunity bars the excessive force claims against the Defendants

Sturm v. Ross

11 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 10, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for conduct in the course of their official duties unless the alleged conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable public official would have … The Fifth Circuit has developed a two-step process for the examination of a claim of qualified immunity. The first inquiry is whether Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Ramirez v. Killian

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 12, 2022

violated clearly established law.” … Plaintiffs Failed to Prove a Violation of Their Clearly Established Rights Qualified immunity applies if a reasonable officer could have believed the disputed act was lawful in light of clearly established law and

In Re STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKS

391 S.W.3d 117 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 16, 2013

for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established. *123 B. … establishes that proposition.

Mitchell v. CIT Bank, N.A.

District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 28, 2021

Co., 123 F.R.D. 198, 201 (M.D.N.C. 1998) (work product doctrine is merely qualified immunity from discovery “not having an intrinsic value outside the litigation arena.”). … Ill. 2000) (“[D]escribing a document as ‘legal advice’ . . . is not the same as establishing that [it is] immune from discovery.”).