Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of Lancaster v. Chambersgreen2 sentences2024The nonmovant, in contrast, bears an “elevated standard of proof” to “defeat a claim of official immunity in response to a motion for summary judgment.” 70 Proof that a reasonably prudent officer could have assessed the needs and risks differently is insufficient. 71 To controvert proof of good faith, the plaintiff must show, with “reference to each aspect of the need and risk balancing test,” 72 that no reasonably prudent officer “in the defendant’s position could have thought the facts were such that they justified defendant’s acts.” 73 If reasonably prudent officers “could disagree on this 2024The nonmovant, in contrast, bears an “elevated standard of proof” to “defeat a claim of official immunity in response to a motion for summary judgment.” 70 Proof that a reasonably prudent officer could have assessed the needs and risks differently is insufficient. 71 To controvert proof of good faith, the plaintiff must show, with “reference to each aspect of the need and risk balancing test,” 72 that no reasonably prudent officer “in the defendant’s position could have thought the facts were such that they justified defendant’s acts.” 73 If reasonably prudent officers “could disagree on this | 5 | 21 |
City of Corinth v. Gladysgreen2 sentences1996See id. 1996See id. | 2 | 2 |
Post v. City of Fort Lauderdalegreen2 sentences2024The nonmovant, in contrast, bears an “elevated standard of proof” to “defeat a claim of official immunity in response to a motion for summary judgment.” 70 Proof that a reasonably prudent officer could have assessed the needs and risks differently is insufficient. 71 To controvert proof of good faith, the plaintiff must show, with “reference to each aspect of the need and risk balancing test,” 72 that no reasonably prudent officer “in the defendant’s position could have thought the facts were such that they justified defendant’s acts.” 73 If reasonably prudent officers “could disagree on this 2024The nonmovant, in contrast, bears an “elevated standard of proof” to “defeat a claim of official immunity in response to a motion for summary judgment.” 70 Proof that a reasonably prudent officer could have assessed the needs and risks differently is insufficient. 71 To controvert proof of good faith, the plaintiff must show, with “reference to each aspect of the need and risk balancing test,” 72 that no reasonably prudent officer “in the defendant’s position could have thought the facts were such that they justified defendant’s acts.” 73 If reasonably prudent officers “could disagree on this | 1 | 2 |
Malley v. Briggsgreen1 sentence2024The nonmovant, in contrast, bears an “elevated standard of proof” to “defeat a claim of official immunity in response to a motion for summary judgment.” 70 Proof that a reasonably prudent officer could have assessed the needs and risks differently is insufficient. 71 To controvert proof of good faith, the plaintiff must show, with “reference to each aspect of the need and risk balancing test,” 72 that no reasonably prudent officer “in the defendant’s position could have thought the facts were such that they justified defendant’s acts.” 73 If reasonably prudent officers “could disagree on this | 1 | 1 |
City of San Antonio v. Ytuartegreen1 sentence2024The nonmovant, in contrast, bears an “elevated standard of proof” to “defeat a claim of official immunity in response to a motion for summary judgment.” 70 Proof that a reasonably prudent officer could have assessed the needs and risks differently is insufficient. 71 To controvert proof of good faith, the plaintiff must show, with “reference to each aspect of the need and risk balancing test,” 72 that no reasonably prudent officer “in the defendant’s position could have thought the facts were such that they justified defendant’s acts.” 73 If reasonably prudent officers “could disagree on this | 1 | 1 |
Wadewitz v. Montgomerygreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Wadewitz, 951 S.W.2d at 466 (explaining that conclusory statements on good faith will not support a claim of official immunity); Mata v. Harris County, No. 14-14-00363-CV, 2016 WL 675379 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 18, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vela v. Rocha
green
2 sentences2002Vela, 52 S.W.3d at 404 . 2002Vela , 52 S.W.3d at 404 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
University of Houston v. Clark
green
2 sentences2024The nonmovant, in contrast, bears an “elevated standard of proof” to “defeat a claim of official immunity in response to a motion for summary judgment.” 70 Proof that a reasonably prudent officer could have assessed the needs and risks differently is insufficient. 71 To controvert proof of good faith, the plaintiff must show, with “reference to each aspect of the need and risk balancing test,” 72 that no reasonably prudent officer “in the defendant’s position could have thought the facts were such that they justified defendant’s acts.” 73 If reasonably prudent officers “could disagree on this 2024The nonmovant, in contrast, bears an “elevated standard of proof” to “defeat a claim of official immunity in response to a motion for summary judgment.” 70 Proof that a reasonably prudent officer could have assessed the needs and risks differently is insufficient. 71 To controvert proof of good faith, the plaintiff must show, with “reference to each aspect of the need and risk balancing test,” 72 that no reasonably prudent officer “in the defendant’s position could have thought the facts were such that they justified defendant’s acts.” 73 If reasonably prudent officers “could disagree on this | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Bonilla
green
1 sentence2024The nonmovant, in contrast, bears an “elevated standard of proof” to “defeat a claim of official immunity in response to a motion for summary judgment.” 70 Proof that a reasonably prudent officer could have assessed the needs and risks differently is insufficient. 71 To controvert proof of good faith, the plaintiff must show, with “reference to each aspect of the need and risk balancing test,” 72 that no reasonably prudent officer “in the defendant’s position could have thought the facts were such that they justified defendant’s acts.” 73 If reasonably prudent officers “could disagree on this | 1 | 2024–2024 |
City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
DeWitt v. Harris County
green
1 sentence1995Further, this Court’s decision in DeWitt v. Harris County, 904 S.W.2d 650 , clarifies that a city can rely on the official immunity of its employees and agents. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.