Case law

Fuhr v. City of Sherman, Texas

District Court, E.D. Texas · Feb 3, 2023

Servs., 47 F.3d 1438, 1444 (5th Cir. 1995) (“A fact finder can infer pretext if it finds that the employee was “clearly better qualified” (as opposed to merely better or as qualified) than the employees who are selected … Fuhr has not met this high standard of establishing that he was “vastly” more qualified for the job than Coleman.

Thompson v. City of Arlington, Tex.

838 F. Supp. 1137 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 17, 1993

Qualified immunity insulates government officials from civil damages liability when the officials’ actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In analyzing whether the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the court considers whether plaintiff has alleged any violation of a clearly established right, and, if so, whether the individual defendant

Kalimah v. CITY OF McKINNEY, TEX.

213 F. Supp. 2d 698 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 2, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity, however, protects § 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light of such clearly established law, a reasonable

Copeland v. Boone

866 S.W.2d 55 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Sep 8, 1993

Baeza concedes that she must establish the three pronged-criteria to qualify for official immunity. There is no dispute that she was acting within the scope of her official duties. … The terms "qualified immunity” and “official immunity” appear to have been used interchangeably in some Texas courts. See Travis v.

Waller v. Spears

61 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jan 14, 1999

Qualified Immunity When a defendant pleads the defense of qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v. … Qualified immunity shields officers from a damage suit if they could have reasonably believed their actions to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting officers possessed at the time

Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co., Bnsf Railway Co., and Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. City of Houston, Texas and Daniel Krueger, in His Official Capacity as Director of Public Works and Engineering

59 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 512 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2016

Recognizing our *162 jurisprudence clearly established that suits seeking to require government officers to comply with the law are not barred by governmental immunity because noncompliance’ with the law is an ultra vires … But while Krueger clearly had authority, and while he clearly had to use some judgment in determining “impervious surface,” the court of appeals stopped short of asking whether his authority might nonetheless have some limits

Oscar Ortega, Roggie Law, Steven Murdock, and Don Egdorf v. Alan Pean

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 11, 2019

Thus, to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged … See id. at 630 (to negate officer’s assertion of qualified immunity, plaintiff must present summary judgment evidence demonstrating an issue of material fact as to whether officer’s actions violated clearly established

Ramirez v. Fonseca

331 F. Supp. 3d 667 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 6, 2018

Qualified Immunity "The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because Plaintiff has not shown that his conduct violated Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights or that the force he used was clearly

Hunt v. Smith

67 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 13, 1999

However, although the Defendant would most likely be entitled to qualified immunity, 11 qualified immunity is not necessary to protect the Defendant. … One important difference, however, is that official immunity does not ineor- *683 porate the requirement that the plaintiff show the violation of a clearly established right.

Gonzalez v. Huerta

103 F. Supp. 3d 840 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 10, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … 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 ex rel. Hernandez v. Tex.

Murillo v. Garza

881 S.W.2d 199 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Jul 29, 1994

Although the Chambers case reviewed the actions of police officers and whether they acted in good faith, we acknowledge the same standard applies in all qualified or official immunity cases. … Could the official reasonably believe his or her conduct to be sound and valid in light of clearly established traffic guidelines and the information the official possessed at the time the conduct occurred?

Hicks v. Brysch

989 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 29, 1997

A party seeking damages from an official asserting Harlow qualified immunity bears the burden of overcoming that defense. 105 Once a government official or employee has asserted qualified immunity and established that the … . 122 In a Section 1983 lawsuit, the relevant inquiry is whether the legal right which the plaintiff asserts was violated "was clearly established under federal ■ law. 123 Whether an official protected by qualified immunity

City of Brownsville, Texas v. Rio Bravo Subdivision Property Owners Association, on Behalf of 203 Registered Voters in the Rio Bravo Subdivision

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 14, 2008

Declaratory Judgments and Governmental Immunity Governmental entities enjoy immunity from suit unless the legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived such immunity. See, e.g., Tooke v. … This statutory provision clearly and unambiguously authorizes suit against a city for failure to disannex an area, provided that two conditions precedent are satisfied: (1) a majority of qualified voters of the annexed area

Brazos Transit District v. Arturo Lozano

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Mar 28, 2002

conversely if the employee is protected by qualified immunity, then so is the governmental entity; and "[t]o that extent, a claim of sovereign immunity may be 'based on' an individual's assertion of qualified immunity and … This cannot fairly be characterized as an assertion of qualified immunity. Brazos' attempt to appeal fails under section (5).

Reasonover v. Wellborn

195 F. Supp. 2d 827 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 28, 2001

engaged in conduct that violated the clearly established right.” … To begin the qualified immunity analysis, the court must determine if a constitutional violation occurred. The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is a clearly established constitutional right. Beck v.

Antu v. Eddy

914 S.W.2d 166 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Dec 6, 1995

The Chambers court also quoted with approval the law regarding federal qualified immunity in § 1983 cases: “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly … his qualified immunity, then the County is not liable.”

Callis v. Sellars

931 F. Supp. 504 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 27, 1996

In examining an official’s claim of qualified immunity, courts follow a two-step process. The first step is to ascertain whether the plaintiff alleges “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” … Even if an official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if the conduct was objectively reasonable. Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d at 310 .

Strittmatter v. Briscoe

504 F. Supp. 2d 169 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 11, 2007

reference to clearly-established law. … Qualified immunity analysis is a two-step process: (1) the court must determine whether plaintiff alleges a violation of a clearly-established right and (2) if so, the court must decide whether the officials’ alleged conduct

Livingston v. Desoto Independent School District

391 F. Supp. 2d 463 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 12, 2005

Qualified Immunity The threshold question the court must answer with regard to the claims against Goad and Galloway is whether they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Mangieri v. … And, it is well-established that an individual officer’s qualified immunity does not protect a municipality.” Id.

Johnson v. Resendez

993 S.W.2d 723 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Mar 25, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … Although the central issue in many qualified immunity cases is whether a particular constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation, the threshold issue in this case is whether a constitutional