Case law

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

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.”

Jackson v. Katy Independent School District

951 F. Supp. 1293 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 8, 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 reasonable public officials could differ on the lawfulness of their actions. Hassan v.

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.

Estate of Schroeder ex rel. Schroeder v. Gillespie County

23 F. Supp. 3d 775 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 2, 2014

The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and if so, whether … Therefore, while Defendants assert Mills is entitled to qualified immunity, Mills has not been sued in his individual capacity, and the Court need not address whether Mills is entitled to qualified immunity.

William Marsh Rice University and Gary Spears v. Rasheed Refaey

58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 741 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2015

In Klein, a different statutory scheme enabled a private university teaching hospital to qualify as a state agency, and therefore its employee, the defendant-doctor, qualified as an employee of a state agency for the purpose … According to Refaey, this Black’s-attributed definition is consistent with how “officer” is used in section 51.014(a)(5) and clearly excludes peace officers.

Strain v. Kaufman County District Attorney's Office

23 F. Supp. 2d 685 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 23, 1998

Qualified Immunity and the State Defendants Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Again, the Fifth Circuit held that the state actors were entitled to qualified immunity finding there was no clearly established right to family integrity. Id. at 1173 .

Texas State Technical College v. Cressman

172 S.W.3d 61 · Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Aug 3, 2005

Appellants contend in their second issue that they conclusively established their entitlement to judgment on the issue of official immunity. … The Fifth Circuit vacated this dismissal order holding that “[i]f a reasonable government agent would know that the audio and video recordings were clearly illegal, there could be no qualified immunity.” Cressman v.

Maximiliano Herrera, Richard Woodcroft, Loretta Tamm, Nina Vaughan and Sandra Moreno v. Norris L. Spencer

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Oct 16, 2003

Second, we determine whether the right was clearly established; that is, whether it would be clear to a reasonable official that his conduct violated that right. Id . … Appellants, in their individual capacities, are entitled to qualified immunity from Spencer's claims. We sustain appellants' second issue.

Wimer v. Holzapfel

868 F. Supp. 844 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 27, 1994

Qualified Immunity While the court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment motion obviates the need to examine the issue of qualified immunity, this court feels it is appropriate to address the question. … It is for this court to decide whether Sheriff Holzapfel is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Larkin v. Johnson

44 S.W.3d 188 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Apr 26, 2001

As there is no issue of material fact regarding any element of qualified official immunity, we affirm. … Thus, we do not reach Larkin’s causes of action because we conclude Johnson objectively functioned within the aura of the qualified governmental immunity doctrine.

Morgan v. Plano Independent School District

612 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2009

Ultimately, the individuals are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of their actions. Id. at 323 . … Public officials acting within the scope of their official duties enjoy the protection of qualified immunity to the extent their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Chiu v. Plano Indep.

Harville v. Texas A & M University

833 F. Supp. 2d 645 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 8, 2011

They assert that all three of the defendant employees are protected by qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Additionally, the Court grants the defendants’ motion regarding Ryan, Mortensen and Maes because they are shielded by qualified immunity.

Fennell v. Marion Independent School District

963 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 2, 2013

While Plaintiffs have pleaded facts supporting a constitutional violation, Davis would still be entitled to qualified immunity if he acted reasonably “in light of clearly established law at the time of the violation.” … Because Plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, would establish that Manley violated a clearly established constitutional right, Manley is not entitled to qualified immunity — and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied — as to

Villegas

District Court, W.D. Texas · Dec 9, 2025

Qualified immunity is “a right to immunity from certain claims, not from litigation in general.”47 A defendant-officer raising a qualified immunity defense does not automatically demand a global stay of claims brought … immunity defense.53 This defense contemplates whether his conduct during the Second Investigation (1) violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights;54 and/or (2) was “objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established

Maria S. ex rel. E.H.F. v. Doe

267 F. Supp. 3d 923 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 21, 2017

After identifying the clearly established rights at stake, the Court ruled as a matter .of law that a waiver of those rights obtained through coercion would not be objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law … Qualified immunity, shields 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

City of Robstown v. Ramirez

17 S.W.3d 268 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · May 11, 2000

s assertion of qualified or official immunity in order for the sovereign. … To the extent that Aguilar’s argument on appeal is based on qualified immunity, we aré unable to consider it as he did not raise the issues of res judicata or collateral estoppel within an argument of qualified immunity in

Baughman v. Garcia

254 F. Supp. 3d 848 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 26, 2017

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must satisfy a two-prong inquiry by showing: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Mullenix v.

Brooks v. Scherler

859 S.W.2d 586 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 29, 1993

The first element of qualified immunity is established. … The second element of qualified immunity is proven. Finally, the summary proof establishes that the Harassed reported the incidents of sexual harassment in good faith.

the City of Laredo and Agustin Dovalina, III v. David Leal

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Dec 29, 2004

Qualified Immunity Dovalina next argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment on Leal's substantive and procedural due process claims on the ground of qualified immunity. (3) We again agree. … "The well-established test for qualified immunity requires us to engage in a two-step inquiry." Sanchez v. Swyden , 139 F.3d 464, 466 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 872 (1998).