Case law

Rose v. Governor

24 Tex. 496 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

The point is, that these appellants are not qualified to maintain this suit against the Governor of the State of Texas, because they never had capacity to maintain a suit against the President of the Republic of Texas. … with strictness, so as to extend the right only to those by whom it was clearly intended that it should be enjoyed.

City of Houston v. Lee

762 S.W.2d 180 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Oct 13, 1988

An appointment may not be made before the required qualifying criteria have been established and approved as prescribed by this subdivision. … None of the ordinances described the positions established by titles indicating the duties to be performed.

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.

Carr v. Montgomery County

59 F. Supp. 3d 787 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 6, 2014

If the allegations do not establish a violation of a constitutional right, the [official] is entitled to qualified immunity.... … The officer defendants assert qualified immunity to the claims against them. The district attorney defendants have asserted qualified immunity as to some claims and absolute immunity as to others.

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).

Gonzales v. Lubbock State School

487 S.W.2d 815 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 30, 1972

Plaintiffs’ suit, seeking to establish liability against the defendant governmental employer pursuant to the Texas Tort Claims Act 1 for personal injuries received in the course of employment, was summarily dismissed on summary … University of Texas: Greenhill and Murto, Governmental Immunity, 49 Texas L.Rev. 462 , 468 (1971). 3 . Id. t 472.

State v. Elliott

879 S.W.2d 381 · Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Jun 29, 1994

The act allowed local governments to create rapid transit authorities with the powers necessary to establish and maintain mass transit systems providing service within their metropolitan area. Id. art. 1118x, §§ 3, 6. … and use tax” when he or she qualifies as an officer of the Metro authority.

Engelman Irrigation District v. Nelda Lee Shields and Nina Garcia Garrett

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · May 8, 2008

Appellees further produced testimony indicating that Engelman had not clearly established procedures for obtaining the new forms and that its employees were themselves uncertain as to the requirements for obtaining and properly … It is well-established that governmental entities generally enjoy immunity from suit, unless the legislature has explicitly waived such immunity. See, e.g., Tooke v.

Spectrum WT v. Wendler

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 21, 2023

This makes it “all the more obvious that the law in this area is not so clearly established to put [President Wendler] on notice so as to defeat qualified immunity.” … Ig For the foregoing reasons, President Wendler did not violate Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights and is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.?

LTTS Charter School, Inc. v. C2 Construction, Inc.

54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1176 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2011

In this case, Universal Academy is run by a non-profit corporation organized under Texas law and qualifying under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. … And if immunity is never waived, then Section 12.1056 would suggest that open-enrollment charter schools are immune from all tort liability, unique among all governmental entities in the State.

Ann Rosenberg v. KIPP, Inc.

458 S.W.3d 171 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 2, 2015

The evidence shows Rosenberg was over forty and qualified for the position. The evidence also establishes she was not invited to return for the 2011-2012 academic year, and her employment was terminated in May 2011. … See Garcia II, 253 S.W.3d at 660 (holding the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act clearly and unambiguously waives immunity for suits brought against school districts under the Act). .

Lueck v. Wathen

262 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 19, 2003

Defendants also move for summary judgment on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity. … Government officials are immune from suit for discretionary acts performed in good faith while acting within the scope of their authority unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

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.

Thomas v. State

294 F. Supp. 3d 576 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 13, 2018

When qualified immunity is invoked, the plaintiff has the burden to show the inapplicability of an asserted qualified immunity defense. Club Retro, L.L.C. v. … Feb. 16, 2016) (denying motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity because the plaintiff was not required to anticipate a qualified immunity defense by providing greater specificity in his initial pleading).

U OF TEX SOUTHWESTERN MED. CEN. v. Margulis

11 S.W.3d 186 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000

The motion for summary judgment argued that as a matter of law the plaintiff failed to plead specific facts that would indicate a violation of clearly established law. … The motion then argued extensively that as a matter of law Fain and Winchester were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

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.

City of San Antonio v. Lower Colorado River Authority

369 S.W.3d 231 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 29, 2011

By the middle of 2008, studies had established that under its original parameters, the project would generate between 90,000 and 115,000 acre-feet of water for SAWS. … This clearly qualifies as “providing goods [and] services to” LCRA. See Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v.

Terry Trimble, Tom Phillips, Judy Rouse, Barry W. Frederickson, and Claudia Langguth v. John L. Robinson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 26, 1996

Because official immunity is an affirmative defense, summary judgment is proper only if the movants establish conclusively each element of the defense. Kassen, 887 S.W.2d at 8 . … "[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 by the official at the time the conduct occurred."

Medina v. O'NEILL

589 F. Supp. 1028 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 7, 1984

Finally, defendants aver that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields the good faith acts of the individually named federal defendants because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once the defendants establish this defense, the burden then shifts to the plaintiffs to prove that the defendants’ actions violated clearly established law. Harlow v.

La Villa Independent School District and Sonia M. Lopez v. Marlene Hinojosa

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Oct 23, 2025

Only the sovereign’s own consent could qualify the absolute character of that immunity.”). … Thus, unless sovereign immunity is clearly and unambiguously waived by the legislature, a Texas court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any lawsuit against a governmental unit such as LVISD. See El Paso Educ.