Case law

In Re Fema Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation

668 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 2012

Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. Castro v. United States, 560 F.3d 381, 386 (5th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 608 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2010). … intended to immunize the federal government under the state emergency statutes.

Jo Anna Miles v. David Baker

455 F. App'x 500 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 28, 2011

B) Entitlement to Qualified Immunity We now turn to the question of whether the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Beckworth contends that Miles’s First Amendment retaliation claim is not based on clearly established federal law.

Bernard and Odette Port v. Jack Heard, Sheriff of Harris County, Texas

764 F.2d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1985

The Ports are clearly challenging more than just their confinement. United States v. Cooper, 725 F.2d 756, 758 (D.C.Cir.1984). … We clearly so held in Spring v. Caldwell, 692 F.2d 994 (5th Cir.1982). Further, the Ports did not challenge the fines in their habeas corpus petitions.

Matter of Appletree Markets, Inc.

19 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 1994

Sec. 1167 . 11 COBRA defines the "plan sponsor" as(i) the employer in the case of an employee benefit plan established or maintained by a single employer, ... or (iii) in the case of a plan established or maintained by two … is clearly not an event that terminates the Board's obligations to provide COBRA coverage to the SCP Qualified Beneficiaries.

William L. Palmer, Sr. v. United States

340 F.2d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 7, 1964

Thus, “causing” is not qualified by any term requiring wilfulness, as in Title 18 U.S.C. § 2 (b). See Nye and Nissen v. United States, 1949, 336 U.S. 613 , 69 S.Ct. 766 , 93 L.Ed. 919 . … The statutory scheme establishes lawful methods for dispensing drugs upon prescription; anyone dispensing drugs outside of the statutory scheme violates the law. DeFreese v.

4 Fair empl.prac.cas. 762, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7829 Ira Mae Sparks v. Merritt Griffin, Individually

460 F.2d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 1972

Further, they assail as clearly erroneous the district court’s finding that the school district’s failure to renew their contracts was not racially motivated. … ‘demoted’ or ‘dismissed,’ or that the principal or teacher was not ‘qualified,’ factors which we have already discussed in greater detail.

Odessa L. Reeves, Cross-Appellee v. Claiborne County Board of Education, and John C. Noble Cross-Appellant

828 F.2d 1096 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 1987

Qualified Immunity The district court absolved the Board and its constituent members of both official and individual liability. … It is “clearly established” that a government employer cannot retaliate against an employee for the exercise of first amendment rights. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

De Busk v. Harvin

212 F.2d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 1954

The uncontroverted affidavits of appellees, attached as exhibits to the amended petition for removal, clearly reveal that appellant’s dismissal by appellees was an “act under color of * * * office”, within the meaning of … It has long been established that the existence of an improper motive for a duly authorized official act constitutes no exception to the rule of official immunity. See Spalding v.

Harrington v. Lancaster

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 4, 2026

Apparent consent therefore did not justify the officers’ second warrantless entry, search, and seizure. 1 Qualified immunity does not change that conclusion. … On these allegations, we cannot say that every reasonable officer would have understood that conduct to violate clearly established law.

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local No. 4-16000 v. Ethyl Corporation

703 F.2d 933 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 28, 1983

We perceive no error approaching the clearly erroneous benchmark. … We didn’t have, as I mentioned, sufficient qualified operators so that we could put a trainee with a qualified operator.

Lewis v. Hughs

28 F.4th 659 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 16, 2022

See id. § 86.006(i) (establishing standards for “the prosecution of an offense under Subsection (f)” by “the prosecuting attorney”). … In sum, I am persuaded that these cases ought not fail on standing or sovereign immunity grounds.

United States v. Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc.

672 F.2d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 1982

The Supreme Court reviewed prior cases on state action immunity and held that they established a two-pronged standard. … conduct as part of a clearly established or affirmatively expressed state policy. 10 The State of Georgia, participating as amicus in the district court, presented a 1942 order issued by its public service commission stating

Connell Construction Company, Inc. v. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 100, Etc.

483 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 1973

General Antitrust Immunity — The rule which I discern from the existing authorities is two-fold. … an established bargaining relationship, while here Connell and the union had no labor law duty to bargain at all.

Carl Fox, III v. State of Mississippi

551 F. App'x 772 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 8, 2014

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Claim In order to establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was either excluded from … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Dung Pham v. Univ of LA at Monroe

712 F. App'x 360 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 17, 2017

Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Collins v. Wolfson

498 F.2d 1100 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 9, 1974

Employing admittedly general criteria or guidelines is thus confined to determining who among qualified instructors is more or less expendable, rather than deciding who on the faculty has so misbehaved as to warrant dismissal … Consequently, Hernhuter clearly enjoyed a property interest deserving of constitutional protection upon its termination. 4 See Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 .

Raymond Goforth v. David B. Poythress, Etc., Herman Hansird

638 F.2d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 23, 1981

. § 2201 , a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, and other relief to enjoin the alleged deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges, immunities and the equal protection of the law, arising under … This statute provides that any candidate for Sheriff in Georgia must “have obtained a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent in educational training as established by the Georgia Peace Officers’ Standards and Training

36 Fair empl.prac.cas. 330, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,756 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Avis M. Cook, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Exxon Shipping Company

745 F.2d 967 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 5, 1984

We share Exxon's concern with respect to the validity of this conclusion. 7 We think, however, that the record nonetheless clearly supports the conclusion that Cook was more qualified for a TA position than Hurtado. 30 Prior … We cannot say that it is clearly erroneous.

Burkle v. Patrick

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 28, 2025

right; and (2) the right was clearly established. … and unusual punishment. 19 Accordingly, the focus is on the second step of the qualified immunity analysis—that is, whether the officers violated clearly established law.

Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris County, Tex.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 20, 1992

The state relies upon principles of qualified immunity under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982), and its requirement that the law be "clearly established at the time an action occurred." … The state enjoys no protection from any qualified immunity of a state official.