Case law

Sossamon v. LONE STAR STATE OF TEXAS

713 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … With respect to a ruling on qualified immunity, the first question a court should address is “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v.

City of Alamo v. Holton

934 S.W.2d 833 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Dec 19, 1996

The City of Alamo appeals from an interlocutory order denying its motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … The terms "qualified immunity,” "official immunity," "quasi-judicial immunity,” "discretionary immunity” and "good faith immunity” refer to affirmative defenses available to governmental employees sued in their individual

Leibowitz v. CITY OF MINEOLA, TEX.

660 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 2, 2009

Qualified Immunity Bittner asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials from liability for monetary damages for acts in the performance of discretionary functions that were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law

Tinsley v. Pittari

952 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 1, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights. … To the extent the claim is so construed, defendants’ previously-established entitlement to qualified immunity is applicable. The outcome is the same under a Fourteenth Amendment analysis.

Sauls v. Montgomery County

18 S.W.3d 310 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · May 18, 2000

Therefore, in view of the confusion regarding the terms, “official immunity” and “qualified immunity,” it is not clear from the record that appellees presented the affirmative defense of “qualified immunity” to the trial … Thus, we do not consider the merit of “qualified immunity” as a ground for summary judgment in favor of Williams, individually.

Bittakis v. City of El Paso

480 F. Supp. 2d 895 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 13, 2007

When defendants claim qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Williams v. … Qualified immunity for the officers turns on whether “a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the ... officers possessed.

Groom v. Fickes

966 F. Supp. 1466 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 2, 1997

Qualified Immunity The plaintiff also contends that, in an investigative capacity, Clark is entitled only to the more general qualified immunity. … Nevertheless, qualified immunity shields prosecutors and other government officials from liability for money damages when performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Graniczny v. City of El Paso, Tex.

809 F. Supp. 2d 597 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 7, 2011

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity provides immunity from suit under § 1983 to government officials provided that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which … Thus, this analysis encompasses the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis previously mentioned: whether there was a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc.

47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 852 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2004

Federal courts recognize a qualified immunity for public officials, which is analogous although not identical to our official immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers with discretionary authority from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

State v. Saenz

967 S.W.2d 910 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Apr 16, 1998

Although Texas courts use the terms "qualified” and "official" immunity interchangeably, see, e.g., Travis v. … for federal (qualified) and state (official) immunity tests.

McDonald v. City of Freeport, Tex.

834 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 5, 1993

To be entitled to qualified immunity, a governmental official must have been performing discretionary functions, and his conduct must not have violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … established law for purposes of qualified immunity inquiries.

Les Eckert and Aberdeen Insurance Services, Inc. v. Jose Montemayor, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas and Texas Department of Insurance

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 31, 2005

If we find an alleged violation of a constitutional right, we then consider if the right was “clearly established.” Id . … was “clearly established.”

Maldonado v. Rodriguez

322 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 15, 2017

immunity. … Qualified Immunity from Individual Capacity Claims a.

Classroom Teachers of Dallas v. Dallas Independent School District

164 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2001

immunity because Plaintiffs allege no affirmative *846 conduct on the part of either; and 4) Me-drano is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Consequently, a defendant in that situation might not have violated a clearly established constitutional right and qualified immunity might still be available. 10 .

Davis v. Education Service Center

62 S.W.3d 890 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Dec 5, 2001

. § 22.051(a); rather, Region VIII qualifies for sovereign immunity as an agency of the State. Sovereign immunity, unless waived, insulates the State of Texas, its agencies, and its officials from lawsuits for damages. … In Matthews , the court ruled the defendant did not have a qualified immunity for violating Title VII. Id. at 847 .

Galveston Independent School District v. Clear Lake Rehabilitation Hospital, L.L.C.

324 S.W.3d 802 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Nov 24, 2010

Referencing Braun, the court held “that the establishment of the self funded group medical insurance program by [the school district] is a governmental function and that governmental immunity applies.” Id. at 779-80. … (“We do not see how H & H Sand’s allegation of unilateral modification establishes a waiver of governmental immunity under [section 271.152’s] requirement that a contract be ‘properly executed on behalf of the local governmental

Leachman v. Dretke

261 S.W.3d 297 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 10, 2008

After a government official asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Therefore, as to Oncken’s qualified immunity defense, Leachman failed to show that her conduct violated any clearly-established statutory or constitutional right because he failed to state any constitutional claims in his

Batiste v. City of Beaumont

421 F. Supp. 2d 969 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 10, 2005

As the doctrine exists today, qualified immunity shields state officials from personal suits for acts in their official capacity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … The concept of conduct objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law is difficult to grasp.

in Re: Texas Department of Transportation

510 S.W.3d 701 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Oct 14, 2016

While the motion did not expressly refer to sovereign immunity, it asserted that Flores could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because TxDOT filled the vacant position with an older employee. … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, the plaintiff in a true replacement case must show that he or she was (1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified

Rhodes v. Torres

901 S.W.2d 794 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jun 22, 1995

The test under federal immunity law for such claims is as follows: “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … Rhodes was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time he filed the motion to revoke her probation.