Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersTX

10,000+ results

1.56s

  • Atkinson v. Pustilnik

    District Court, S.D. Texas · May 2, 2024

    established, meaning qualified immunity was warranted) … Violation of a Clearly Established Right The second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry requires me to determine if the “right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Garces Robles v. Ramirez

    District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 25, 2024

    Plaintiffs sufficiently plead that the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Hicks, 81 F.4th at 504 (holding that the right to timely release was clearly established as of 2017).5 “Ultimately, the touchstone is fair warning: The law can be clearly established despite notable factual distinctions

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Haynes v. City of Beaumont

    35 S.W.3d 166 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Dec 8, 2000

    Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In practice, whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of clearly established legal rules at the time the

    Cited 130 timesPublished
  • Bartlett v. Cinemark USA, Inc.

    908 S.W.2d 229 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 11, 1995

    The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2, 12 (1st Cir.1993) (recognizing that Supreme Court has not clearly explained role of “discretionary functions” in qualified immunity analysis).

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas v. Margulis

    43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 288 · 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.

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Newman v. Kock

    274 S.W.3d 697 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 6, 2008

    In response to Newman’s due process and due course claims, Appellees asserted the affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and official immunity and filed a traditional motion for summary judgment claiming that they established … that violated clearly established law.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Mohamed ex rel. A.M. v. Irving Independent School District

    252 F. Supp. 3d 602 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 18, 2017

    Principal Cummings asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiff has failed to plead facts showing that he violated any of A.M.’s clearly established constitutional rights. … In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts ... to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Mullenix v.

    Cited 32 timesPublished
  • Robinett v. Carlisle

    928 S.W.2d 623 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 15, 1996

    ... qualified immunity.” … Police officers are immune if they could have reasonably believed their actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed. Hunter v.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Venable v. Keever

    61 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 24, 1999

    Defendants assert that they are each entitled to qualified immunity from suit because in filing the counterclaim Keever was performing a discretionary act, did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Kostic v. Texas A & M University at Commerce

    11 F. Supp. 3d 699 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2014

    Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was “objectively reasonable in light of ‘clearly established

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Harmon v. Dall. Cnty.

    294 F. Supp. 3d 548 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 20, 2018

    In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts...to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v. … In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts … to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Harris v. City of Balch Springs

    9 F. Supp. 3d 690 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2014

    Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … If “the pleadings on their face show an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right,” assertion of a qualified immunity defense is insufficient to sustain a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Abbas Khoshdel .M.D., Llyod Aschberger, Terri Pursley, and Jamie Williams v. Charles Goosby

    Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Nov 1, 2012

    Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … the clearly established right.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, M. v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist.

    300 F. Supp. 3d 857 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 13, 2018

    In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts ... to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v. … "[T]o evaluate the 'clearly established law' prong of the qualified immunity test, the court must ask whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that such conduct would violate the right."

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • City of San Juan v. Gonzalez

    22 S.W.3d 69 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Jun 1, 2000

    the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under federal law as their actions in effecting appellee’s arrest were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the officers at the time … If there is, we determine whether the government official’s “actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law,” entitling him to qualified immunity. Id.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Booth v. City of Dallas

    312 F.R.D. 427 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2015

    “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … That is, even if a government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is entitled to immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See Davis v.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • John Wayne Charleston v. Clint Allen, Criminal District Attorney of Cass County

    420 S.W.3d 134 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Oct 15, 2012

    —Tyler 1996, no writ) (prosecutor entitled only to qualified immunity in making statements to press). 5 Under the federal standards for qualified immunity, a prosecutor would be “shielded 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 known.”

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Parker v. Armstrong

    District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 7, 2024

    Qualified immunity bars suit against officers in their official capacity from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory constitutional right. … Jones, 922 F.3d 309, 318 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that before the qualified immunity inquiry discretionary authority must be established)).

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch v. Poyner

    64 S.W.3d 182 · Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jan 10, 2002

    The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Holcomb v. McCraw

    262 F. Supp. 3d 437 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jun 27, 2017

    Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions” from civil liability for claims under federal law “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Even if an official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is “nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Wallace v.

    Cited 8 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.