Case law

Jerry Hollingsworth and Kenneth Anderson v. Kim Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor, and Steve Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Dec 31, 2009

of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages under ' 1983 if the official = s A conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … = s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. [18] A right is A clearly established @ when its contours are A sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is

Garcia v. Montford Unit

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 16, 2024

Motion on Qualified Immunity Defendant appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in her answer to the complaint. (Doc. 34). … .”’); see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to

Osborne v. Harris County

97 F. Supp. 3d 911 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2015

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 known … A Clearly Established Right The remaining qualified immunity issue is whether the deputies had fair notice that their actions violated a clearly established right.

Vines v. City of Dallas, Tex.

851 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 28, 1994

Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. In determining whether Defendant Hart has established her defense of qualified immunity, the Court uses a two-prong analysis. … Defendant Hart has asserted the defense of qualified immunity to Plaintiffs claim. Therefore, the Court must decide whether Hart violated a clearly established right of the Plaintiff. The Court finds that Hart did not.

Greene v. Knight

564 F. Supp. 2d 604 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 29, 2008

demonstrating that the official’s conduct violated clearly established law. … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Jerry Hollingsworth and Kenneth Anderson v. Kim Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor, and Steve Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Dec 31, 2009

of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages under § 1983 if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … ’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.18 A right is “clearly established” when its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

Joseph Rome v. Eugene Burden, Michel Cabello, Angela Phillips, and Sareta Davis

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 31, 2002

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. We need only reach this issue if there is a clearly established statutory or constitutional right violated. Rome has not alleged any violation of a statutory right. … Furthermore, as Rome did not establish the predicate constitutional violation, we need not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

City of Corinth v. Gladys

916 S.W.2d 618 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 14, 1996

Fairfield filed an original answer asserting his affirmative defense of qualified or official immunity. … The City argues that the establishment of Fairfield’s qualified immunity protects the City from liability that may exist under section 101.021(2) of the Texas Tort Claims Act, which provides governmental liability for “personal

Joseph Rome v. Eugene Burden, Michel Cabello, Angela Phillips, and Sareta Davis

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 31, 2002

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense. We need only reach this issue if there is a clearly established statutory or constitutional right violated. Rome has not alleged any violation of a statutory right. … Furthermore, as Rome did not establish the predicate constitutional violation, we need not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Bagg v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston

726 S.W.2d 582 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 8, 1987

However, to protect officials from groundless section 1983 suits, the federal courts have recognized what is known as qualified good faith immunity. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Texas A&M University Texas A&M University System Dr. Jerry Gaston And Eugene Ray v. Don Thompson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 18, 2003

Appellants assert the protection of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and quasi-judicial or official immunity against Thompson’s numerous claims. … was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right.

Hucker v. City of Beaumont

144 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 18, 2001

When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a clearly established constitutional right. See Sie-gert v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense requiring the defendant to both plead and establish his entitlement to immunity. See Tamez v.

Dallas Independent School District v. Finlan

27 S.W.3d 220 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Oct 3, 2000

Qualified Immunity Analysis Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, which shields them from liability for civil damages, if “their conduct does not violate … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Snow v. City of El Paso, Texas

501 F. Supp. 2d 826 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2006

Qualified immunity shields public officials from both civil damages and trial “if their actions were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.” Bazan v. … The Court employs a two step process to resolve a qualified immunity defense. First, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established Constitutional *835 right.”

Elliott v. Linnell

561 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 17, 2007

“The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry.” Id. “First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Id. (citation omitted). … “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.” Id. (citation omitted).

Montana v. Patterson

894 S.W.2d 812 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Dec 28, 1994

Appellees claimed qualified or “good faith” immunity to actions brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 , and cited Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Once the Appellees have asserted the qualified immunity and established that the alleged wrongful acts were taken within the scope of their discretionary authority, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to show that qualified

Cudd v. Aldrich

982 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 7, 1997

The next inquiry for qualified immunity purposes is whether Cudd’s First Amendment right to be free from political patronage dismissal was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Second, and more importantly, the inquiry into qualified immunity is an objective one: the Court must determine what a reasonable public official would have understood as clearly established law.

Maxwell v. Henry

815 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 19, 1993

Nuchia has filed a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … In cases where a Defendant asserts qualified immunity as a defense, plaintiffs are held to a higher standard and must plead with particularity all facts establishing a right to recovery, including those which negate the qualified

William A. Newman, Ph.D. v. Nereu F. Kock, Jr., Jacky Yuk-Chow So, Dan R. Jones, and Ray M. Keck, III

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 6, 2008

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a defense to federal law claims that shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from liability as long as their actions could reasonably be thought … that violated clearly established law.

Miller v. City of Nederland by and Through Wimer

977 F. Supp. 432 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1997

To prevail on a qualified immunity defense, the defendant must show that he did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Because Smith and Hamilton have raised the defense of qualified immunity, Miller must show, as a threshold matter, that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.