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.
6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Beltran v. City of El Pasogreen2 sentences2022“To establish an entitlement to qualified immunity, a government official must show that the conduct occurred while he was acting in his official capacity and within the scope of his discretionary authority.” Beltran v. City of El Paso, 367 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 2004). 2013Safety v. Rodriguez, 344 S.W.3d 483, 488 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). ―To establish an entitlement to qualified immunity, a government official must first show that the conduct occurred while he was acting in his official capacity and within the scope of his discretionary authority.‖ Beltran v. City of El Paso, 367 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 2004). ―Once a defendant has properly invoked qualified immunity, the burden rests on the plaintiff to show that the defense does not apply.‖ Id.; Thomas v. Collins, 860 S.W.2d 500, 503 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). | 2 | 2 |
District of Columbia v. Wesbygreen1 sentence2022In this case, the parties do not dispute that Billiris acted in his official capacity and within the scope of his discretionary authority when arresting Hadley. “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (quoting Reichle v. Howards, 556 U.S. 658, 664 (2012)). | 1 | 1 |
David Allen v. Charles McClelland, Jr.green1 sentence2016To overcome a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, we ask whether the evidence is sufficient to create a fact issue as to whether: (1) the official's conduct violated a federal right; and (2) under the circumstances, that right was “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” See Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.Ct. 9 305, 308 (2015); Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.Ct. 1861 , 1865–66 (2014); Allen v. Cisneros, 815 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2016); Trent, 776 F.3d at 376 . | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Dearbornegreen1 sentence2015Kipps v. Callier, 197 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Morris v. Dearborne, 181 F.3d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Rexford Kipps, Carol Kipps and Kyle Kipps v. James Caillier, Ray Authement, Nelson J. Schexnayder, Jr., and Nelson Stokleygreen1 sentence2015Kipps v. Callier, 197 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Morris v. Dearborne, 181 F.3d 657, 665 (5th Cir. 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
IBP, Inc. v. Klumpegreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., IBP, Inc. v. Klumpe, 101 S.W.3d 461 , 475–76 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, pet. denied) 32 (attorney not entitled to immunity when plaintiff alleged criminal conspiracy to commit crime of theft of trade secrets contained in confidential employment guides); Bradt, 892 S.W.2d at 72 (citing, as an example of behavior not protected by qualified immunity, an attorney’s assault of his opposing counsel during trial). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2013Safety v. Rodriguez, 344 S.W.3d 483, 488 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). ―To establish an entitlement to qualified immunity, a government official must first show that the conduct occurred while he was acting in his official capacity and within the scope of his discretionary authority.‖ Beltran v. City of El Paso, 367 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 2004). ―Once a defendant has properly invoked qualified immunity, the burden rests on the plaintiff to show that the defense does not apply.‖ Id.; Thomas v. Collins, 860 S.W.2d 500, 503 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2013Safety v. Rodriguez, 344 S.W.3d 483, 488 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). ―To establish an entitlement to qualified immunity, a government official must first show that the conduct occurred while he was acting in his official capacity and within the scope of his discretionary authority.‖ Beltran v. City of El Paso, 367 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 2004). ―Once a defendant has properly invoked qualified immunity, the burden rests on the plaintiff to show that the defense does not apply.‖ Id.; Thomas v. Collins, 860 S.W.2d 500, 503 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tolan v. Cotton
green
2 sentences2016Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.Ct. 1861 , 2 We construe McCann’s First Amendment and retaliation claims as being brought under section 1983. 5 1865 (2014). 2016To overcome a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, we ask whether the evidence is sufficient to create a fact issue as to whether: (1) the official's conduct violated a federal right; and (2) under the circumstances, that right was “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” See Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.Ct. 9 305, 308 (2015); Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.Ct. 1861 , 1865–66 (2014); Allen v. Cisneros, 815 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2016); Trent, 776 F.3d at 376 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Roger Trent v. Steven Wade
green
1 sentence2016To overcome a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, we ask whether the evidence is sufficient to create a fact issue as to whether: (1) the official's conduct violated a federal right; and (2) under the circumstances, that right was “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” See Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.Ct. 9 305, 308 (2015); Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.Ct. 1861 , 1865–66 (2014); Allen v. Cisneros, 815 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2016); Trent, 776 F.3d at 376 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bradt v. West
green
1 sentence2014See, e.g., IBP, Inc. v. Klumpe, 101 S.W.3d 461 , 475–76 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, pet. denied) 32 (attorney not entitled to immunity when plaintiff alleged criminal conspiracy to commit crime of theft of trade secrets contained in confidential employment guides); Bradt, 892 S.W.2d at 72 (citing, as an example of behavior not protected by qualified immunity, an attorney’s assault of his opposing counsel during trial). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.