-
305 F.3d 314 Fifth Circuit September 5, 2002 No. 00-60256
established law, and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity.
To resolve this apparent conflict between Melear and Shipp, we look to the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity cases addressing what constitutes clearly established law.
established for the purposes of qualified immunity analysis, see 234 F.3d at 915, is overruled.
-
822 F.3d 174 Fifth Circuit May 3, 2016 No. 15-20080Cited by 117 Concurrence · Costa
Carroll County, 587 F.3d 230 (5th Cir.2009), provides even stronger support for qualified immunity.
On this ground of qualified immunity, I would affirm the judgment. 2 .
Taylor I.S.D., 15 F.3d 443, 454 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc) (explaining that for supervisory liability claims the qualified immunity "clearly established” standard applies to the underlying violation as well as the duty to provide better
-
845 F.3d 580 Fifth Circuit November 9, 2016 No. 15-40836Cited by 167 Unpublished
Ceballos 2 case law had clearly established various principles of First Amendment retaliation law. 3 Importantly, the panel in Cutler was itself deciding a qualified immunity question. 4 Specifically, the Cutler panel asked what
or to show that the right was clearly established at the time Anderson spoke.
Our discussion of that rule had no bearing on deciding Valdez’s qualified-immunity claim.
-
659 F.3d 359 Fifth Circuit September 27, 2011 No. 09-40373Cited by 605 Concurrence · Garza
GARZA, Circuit Judge, specially concurring: I completely agree with the first paragraph of Chief Judge Jones’s special concurrence, which concludes that the principals are entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established
-
805 F.3d 543 Fifth Circuit October 28, 2015 No. 15-30182
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), and its progeny and that the pertinent law was clearly established at the time of the incident. Defendants appeal the denial of qualified immunity.
To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established rule of law. See id. at 323 .
In summary, as we have explained, the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established, so the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
-
885 F.3d 811 Fifth Circuit March 20, 2018 No. 12-50217
But the extraterritorial application of these protections to Hernández was not clearly established at the time of Mesa's tortious conduct. Mesa is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. See Mullenix v.
. ----, 136 S.Ct. 305 , 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights."
Scherer , the Supreme Court held, "A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established
-
891 F.3d 214 Fifth Circuit May 23, 2018 No. 17-50022
The district court held those allegations cannot overcome the Doctors' and Nurses' qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly-established. We agree and affirm on that ground.
Because Bustillos' claims could not overcome the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity defense, the district court did not err by declining to grant Bustillos' discovery requests.
Granting of qualified immunity on the "clearly-established" prong is not the same as holding that no constitutional violation occurred. That would conflate the two prongs of qualified immunity.
-
957 F.3d 596 Fifth Circuit April 30, 2020 No. 19-20494
Alternatively, they urge us to revisit this circuit’s approach to qualified immunity and abandon the “clearly established” prong. II.
We therefore hold Blevins is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. IV.
The Garcias also assert that, if we conclude the law was not clearly established, we should reconsider our approach to qualified immunity.
-
113 F.3d 528 Fifth Circuit May 19, 1997 No. 96-20326
“Denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent that the question on appeal is whether the undisputed facts amount to a violation of clearly established law.” Kelly v.
Instead, taking as given the facts assumed by the district court, Ellis claims that she is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, because those assumed facts do not constitute a violation of clearly established federal
Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which
-
134 F.3d 325 Fifth Circuit February 11, 1998 No. 13-10409
Claims of qualified immunity are reviewed under a two-step analysis. The first question is whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
Given the ambiguity of the statute 12 and the surrounding caselaw, the officers violated no clearly established right, and, accordingly, they are entitled to qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. .
We hold only that, for purposes of qualified immunity in this civil case, the law was not clearly established on this question as of the date of this incident.
-
846 F.3d 795 Fifth Circuit January 23, 2017 Nos. 15-31088; Cons w/ 16-30189
Black is entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because his actions as sergeant-at-arms were not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. We affirm on that claim. D.
But an officer is only denied qualified immunity if his or her actions are objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. See, e.g., Blackwell v.
“Even if we find that 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
-
408 F. App'x 846 Fifth Circuit January 19, 2011 No. 09-11044Cited by 7 Unpublished
The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff; and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Manis v.
If the defendant’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, the court then asks whether qualified immunity is still appropriate because the defendant’s actions were “objectively reasonable” in light of “law which
To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Brown v.
-
465 F.3d 174 Fifth Circuit September 13, 2006 No. 05-50075
The qualified immunity determination is a two-step inquiry. First, the court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a violation of a clearly established right. Id.
qualified immunity.
Whether Humphrey is entitled to qualified immunity Humphrey argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because the FMLA was not clearly established at the time Modica’s employment was terminated.
-
547 F. App'x 621 Fifth Circuit November 25, 2013 No. 13-20057
Individual Defendants’ Qualified Immunity State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
is clearly established.”
An official “does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract....
-
718 F.3d 496 Fifth Circuit May 31, 2013 No. 11-41359
When there is no controlling authority specifically prohibiting a defendant’s conduct, the law is not clearly established for the purposes of defeating qualified immunity. See id. at 372 .
This balancing of interests standard is appropriate in a qualified immunity case like ours only if, first, the plaintiff claims a violation of clearly established law. See, e.g. Sterling v.
Because this is a qualified immunity case, a balancing of interests requires a clearly established right.
-
467 F.3d 459 Fifth Circuit October 10, 2006 No. 04-11332
. 11 A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the plaintiff failed to state a constitutional claim or (2) the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law.
When a government official violates a constitutional right, the official is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. 27 A law is “clearly established
established law, and Powell adduced no competent summary judgment evidence to show otherwise, Powell is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity
-
671 F.2d 892 Fifth Circuit March 31, 1982 No. 80-3792
Damage Claims And The Qualified Immunity Defense: Was There A Violation Of Clearly Established Law? Qualified immunity is unavailable to those 1983 defendants who violate “clearly *898 established” law. 10 Procunier v.
We must determine whether 1983 defendants are entitled to the protections of a qualified immunity when there has been a violation of clearly established state law.
established at the times in question and that the defendants were therefore entitled to a qualified immunity.
-
367 F.3d 337 Fifth Circuit September 24, 2002 No. 00-40557Cited by 220 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Barksdale
Accordingly, for the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, it was not clearly established at the time of Officers’ conduct in 1998 that expert witnesses are protected under § 1985 through a claim of the type at issue here
It is true that, even without judicial interpretation, violation of a statute can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.
clearly established when Officers acted in 1998.
-
68 F.4th 223 Fifth Circuit May 15, 2023 No. 21-30625
LeBlanc appeals the denial of qualified immunity arguing, inter alia, that his conduct wasn’t objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. The right to timely release is clearly established.
But under prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, Taylor must also show how Secretary LeBlanc’s “actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the violation.”
Lambert, 921 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2019) (qualified immunity turns on whether defendant’s conduct is “objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law”); Hinojosa v.
-
86 F.3d 469 Fifth Circuit July 2, 1996 No. 95-40331
They contend that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. As Nerren has stated a claim under clearly established law, we affirm.
immunity because the law was not clearly established that they had a duty to provide medical care in the absence of an obvious or expressed need for such care.
immunity: Under currently applicable law, Nerren has alleged a violation of a clearly established right
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.