Case law

Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia

55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1065 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2012

in a plea to the jurisdiction. 32 We held in Garcia I that “the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity” for suits brought against school districts under the TCHRA. 33 However, the Legislature has waived immunity … The District incorrectly contends that our opinion in Garcia I did not actually address the issue of whether the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity for school districts.

Hernandez v. Hines

159 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 29, 2001

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless the Plaintiffs demonstrate that they violated clearly established constitutional law. Schultea v. … The constitutional rights alleged to be violated *386 are “clearly established” for the purposes of evaluating qualified immunity.

Closs v. Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District

874 S.W.2d 859 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Apr 12, 1994

Government officials enjoy qualified good faith immunity from liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … of their due process rights. *874 As for the individual school district appellees, they are entitled to qualified good faith immunity when performing discretionary functions if their conduct does not violate clearly established

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Tanner

928 S.W.2d 731 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 21, 1996

Like Hullum and DPS, we use the term "qualified immunity” when referring to the federal defense and "official immunity” when referring to the state defense. 3 . … Furthermore, Hullum did not move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to the section 1983 claim.

Williams v. Kaufman County

86 F. Supp. 2d 586 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 7, 2000

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. … Before this standard, the parameters of this right were not clearly established or defined. Since these parameters were not clearly defined in April 1995, Sheriff Harris is entitled to qualified immunity.

Schaefer v. Whitted

121 F. Supp. 3d 701 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 5, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Brumfield v. … However, to surmount qualified immunity, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the Second Amendment right Officer Whitted is alleged to have violated is “clearly established” in the more “particularized sense,” such that

Onnette v. Reed

832 S.W.2d 450 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jun 25, 1992

Regarding appellant’s section 1983 claim, appellees argue that “[the TDCJ employees] are entitled to qualified immunity.” Prison officials and officers may rely on qualified immunity in section 1983 actions. … To meet this burden, the plaintiff must estab *453 lish that the defendant’s conduct “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v.

Maewal v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc.

868 S.W.2d 886 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 8, 1994

Appellant contends appellees failed to provide written notice as required by the act and therefore fail to qualify for immunity. We reject this contention. … Second, appellant contends appellees failed to establish lack of malice, an affirmative defense, as a matter of law and do not qualify for immunity. Texas Medical Practice Act.

Wallace v. Moberly

947 S.W.2d 273 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 17, 1997

B) Qualified Immunity to § 1983 Claims In his second point of error, Wallace argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for summary judgment because he is entitled to qualified immunity to Moberly’s federal law … Wallace is entitled to qualified immunity if he could have reasonably believed his actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed. Hunter v.

Arzabala v. Weems

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 31, 2023

When a defendant has asserted a qualified-immunity defense, the Court may, under certain circumstances, permit limited discovery that is narrowly tailored to uncover facts that the Court needs to rule on the qualified-immunity … .”); 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

Trugreen Landcare, L.L.C. v. Scott

512 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2007

Nationsbank Corp., 188 F.3d 579, 588 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit alleging RICO claim because rights that served as basis of claim were not clearly established … Although it is well settled that qualified immunity is not analyzed in identical terms as are the merits of Scott’s RICO claim, in these circumstances' — where Duebner is clearly entitled to summary judgment and has already

Tittle v. Raines

231 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 29, 2002

Raines and Rooney contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity regarding Tittle’s claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy because they did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in fight of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be -a violation of the right at issue.

El Paso Independent School District, Dr. Lorenzo Garcia and Mark Mendoza v. Michael McIntyre and Laura McIntyre, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, K. M., L. M., C. M., M. M., and L. M.

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Aug 6, 2014

and qualified immunity. … The test for qualified immunity requires the court to engage in a two part inquiry: (1) whether a public official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

Spencer v. Rau

542 F. Supp. 2d 583 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 11, 2007

Qualified Immunity The Officers assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In order to establish the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must satisfy a two-part test: (1) under existing law, the plaintiff must allege a violation of an actual, clearly established constitutional

CLIFT BY CLIFT v. Fincannon

657 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 13, 1987

The resolution, then, of the qualified immunity defenses raised by these individually named Defendants turns initially on whether the law was clearly established at the time the action in question occurred. 13 *1545 Thus, … There being no clearly established federal right to habilitation in the least restrictive alternative setting, the individual Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity must prevail in that regard.

Kesler v. King

29 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 7, 1998

With respect to Defendant Wagner’s claim of qualified immunity, the Court has already concluded that Plaintiffs have alleged violations of two clearly established constitutional rights. See Siegert v. … to show that qualified immunity does not bar recovery.

Caffey v. Johnson

883 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 29, 1995

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … When considering a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, it must be determined whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Ashfaq v. Anderson

603 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2009

Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 10), on the basis of qualified immunity. … Ashfaq has failed to allege a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, Dr. Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Dr. Ashfaq’s § 1983 claim should be and hereby is DISMISSED.

Hamrick v. City of Eustace

732 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 19, 1990

Those Courts go on to reason that if the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense must fail. Id. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune. Id.

Doe v. Aguilar

400 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2005

As noted above, plaintiffs have the burden to show that qualified immunity is unavailable here and to do so plaintiffs must show that the right which they allege defendant violated was clearly established in December 2001 … City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320 , 325 (5th Cir.1998): In reviewing a claim of qualified immunity, this Court must determine: ‘(1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right;