Case law

Taylor v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board

661 F. Supp. 1333 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 19, 1986

The court concludes that Bowman and Hall are shielded from liability by qualified good faith immunity. … To prevail against a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that defendants’ conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id.

in Re: Stacy K. Boone, P.A. and Cardiologists of Lubbock, P.A.

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Feb 14, 2006

and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id .

Garza v. Smith

860 S.W.2d 631 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jul 29, 1993

The issue presented by this appeal is whether appellants in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity. … This immunity is known as qualified, official, quasi-judicial, or good faith immunity. See Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d at 812 n. 1. The Texas Tort Claims Act preserves this individual immunity.

City of Watauga v. Russell Gordon

389 S.W.3d 604 · Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Nov 21, 2012

In its brief, the City thoroughly analyzes and attempts to delineate and distinguish between the case law holding, according to the City, that to qualify as an intentional tort, the state actor must have only intended … his act3 and the case law holding that to qualify as an intentional tort, the state actor must have intended 2 For example, the City argues that [e]ven though the Petition purports to plead

Gallegos v. Escalon

993 S.W.2d 422 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · May 6, 1999

In determining whether the school board proceeding at which Gallegos made his statement qualifies as quasi-judicial, we consider which powers outlined in Jacobs the school board exercised. … Second, in exercising its authority to govern, the school board clearly possess the power to “hear evidence and ascertain facts,” that is, to investigate, in order to guide its actions.

Wagner v. Alvarado Independent School District

598 S.W.2d 51 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 17, 1980

Sec. 21.912, Texas Education Code, as construed in Barr does not create an absolute immunity for professional school employees. Rather it creates a “qualified” immunity. Barr v. Bernhard, cited supra, at 848. … In the instant case the acts complained of meet these three requirements and thus the qualified immunity of Sec. 21.912, as construed in Barr , does protect the Defendant-Appellants.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Glenda Pierson v. Linda Thomas as Personal Representative for the Estate of Damon Hollimon, and Ashley Dominique Hollimon

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 19, 2007

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability under section 1983, provided the official's conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or … her entitlement to summary judgment on her affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

Harris County v. Ochoa

881 S.W.2d 884 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 28, 1994

Specifically, appellants argue that Deputies Glazier and Natho were entitled to qualified or official immunity from suit. … Conversely, if the employee is protected from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity, then the governmental entity’s sovereign immunity remains intact.

City of Dallas v. Patrick

347 S.W.3d 452 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 15, 2011

Both the photographs and Patrick’s deposition testimony establish that no obstruction prevented her seeing the curb. … This statute and standards promulgated under it are clearly intended to prevent injury to and discrimination against disabled persons.

Geick v. Zigler

978 S.W.2d 261 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Aug 27, 1998

In a single point of error, appellants argue the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Good Faith For the appellants to have established good faith, they must have shown “reasonably prudent officer[s], under the same or similar circumstances, could have believed” their conduct was lawful in light of clearly

Messer v. Meno

936 F. Supp. 1280 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jul 8, 1996

A defense of qualified immunity would be available to such a defendant. … State actors are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity unless they violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable official would have known. Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 917 (5th Cir.1995).

Mann Ex Rel. Terrazas v. Lopez

404 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 11, 2005

Qualified Immunity with respect to claims asserted against Sheriff Lopez in his individual capacity Evaluating qualified immunity is a two-step process. … By alleging deliberate indifference to [the decedents’] clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights, the plaintiffs have cleared the first hurdle in defeating the defendants’ qualified immunity defense.”

Hazelton v. City of Grand Prairie, Tex.

8 F. Supp. 2d 570 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 9, 1998

Thus, public officials are immune from civil-rights claims brought against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … As discussed in the Court's Opinion below, the key issue for Wynne’s qualified immunity defense is whether he acted reasonably.

Reginald Dale Peters v. Vincent Messina, Stuart Neil, Kelton Conner, Judy Watson, Robert Christian, J.L. East, Allen Hardin, Robert Crank, David Conway, David Tucker, Leslie Crane, Robert Young, Thelbert Millsap, Johnny Rose, Johnny Miller, Judy Elain Peters

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Aug 28, 2009

. § 1983 (footnote: 5) against any of the defendants, qualified immunity is immunity from suit available to government officials sued in their individual capacities under § 1983. Harlow v. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Reginald Dale Peters v. Vincent Messina, Stuart Neil, Kelton Conner, Judy Watson, Robert Christian, J.L. East, Allen Hardin, Robert Crank, David Conway, David Tucker, Leslie Crane, Robert Young, Thelbert Millsap, Johnny Rose, Johnny Miller, Judy Elain Peters

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Aug 28, 2009

To the that extent Peters = s petitions can be construed to allege violations of 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 [5] against any of the defendants, qualified immunity is immunity from suit available to government officials sued in their … Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Larry Mark Polsky v. Spring Mart Entertainment, LLC D/B/A Dog House Pub & Grub

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Mar 7, 2024

Therefore, a party cannot prevail on a no evidence summary judgment motion by establishing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … He contends that defense of qualified immunity does not apply to the bar because Polsky is not an employee of the bar. A.

Carcamo-Lopez v. Does 1 through 20

865 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 2, 2011

Qualified immunity protects officials from suits “for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Because reckless conduct in unforeseen circumstances such as those Montalvo faced cannot qualify as a violation of an individual’s Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights, much less a violation of clearly established

Miller v. Curry

625 S.W.2d 84 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 25, 1981

The Supreme Court in Imbler, supra, reasoned that if a prosecutor had only a qualified immunity, the threat of § 1983 suits would undermine performance of his duties to at least the same extent that the threat of common-law … In applying this well established and clearly defined law of absolute immunity for prosecutors engaged in their official capacities, as stated in Robichaud, supra, and Sykes, supra, as well as Imbler, supra, and other cases

MacHete's Chop Shop, Inc. v. the Texas Film Commission Heather Page, as Director of the Texas Film Commission The Music, Film, Television, and Multimedia Office, Office of the Governor And Greg Abbott, as Governor of the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 29, 2015

4 To overcome an official’s qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of … Accordingly, Machete cannot establish that it had a clearly established right to these funds that Morales violated. See Ashcroft, 131 S. Ct. at 2080.

James Lowry Beavers, Jr. v. Goose Creek Consolidated I.S.D.

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · May 18, 1994

Beavers next contends that the individual defendants never conclusively established their immunity. … For the reasons stated, the individual Goose Creek defendants failed to conclusively establish that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c).