3038-39, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). To be clearly established, the “contours” of the right allegedly violated must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he or she is doing violates that right. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039. Qualified immunity protects only those officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. Thus, to establish their right to summary judgment, appellants had to establish as a matter of law that the functions they performed with respect to appellees’ development plan were discretionary. Under feder al law, the precise meaning of “discretionary function” is as yet unsettled. See Foster v. McGrail, 844 F.Supp. 16, 23 (D.Mass.1994); see also Horta v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2, 12 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). However, Texas courts have defined the term
holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that qualified immunity extends to government officials performing discretionary functions recognizing that supreme court has not clearly explained role of discretionary functions in qualified immunity analysis holding that quasijudicial immunity extends only to officials who perform discretionary functions recognizing the qualified immunity from liability extended to a police officer in performing discretionary functions achieves this balance