Case law

Windhauser v. Board of Supervisors for Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College

360 F. App'x 562 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 2010

. § 1983 Claims The district court held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on all of Windhauser’s § 1983 claims. … Under the ADA, “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability. ...” 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a).

Daniel Anderson, Jr. v. Douglas & Lomason Co., Inc., Douglas & Lomason Co., Inc.

26 F.3d 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 9, 1994

Because the district court’s finding that Anderson and Hardy were not qualified to receive temporary upgrades is not clearly erroneous, the district court’s conclusion that Anderson and Hardy failed to establish a prima facie … Thus Anderson did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he was not qualified for the promotion which he sought. 51 Moreover, even if Anderson did establish a prima facie case, D & L demonstrated by a

Florida Nursing Home Ass'n v. Page

616 F.2d 1355 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 16, 1980

This is a well-established principle and has been applied consistently by courts in cases involving matters similar to that confronting us here. See Rothstein v. … The Alabama court in invalidating the administrative regulation insofar as it set an effective date other than July 1, 1976 for implementing a reimbursement plan based on a reasonable cost basis found it to be clearly inconsistent

Lewis E. Johnson v. The Secretary of and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration

710 F.2d 1130 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 1983

The final question is whether Johnson’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity. To show that sovereign immunity has been waived as to his claim, Johnson relies on section 1 of the Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1702 . … , the suit falls within the qualified waiver of sovereign immunity.

United States v. Jackson

636 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 8, 2010

affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial—they are not testimonial.” … ’s affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial—they are not testimonial.

DeLeon v. City of Dallas

345 F. App'x 21 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden to establish facts that overcome the defense. Collier v. Montgomery, 569 F.3d 214, 217 (5th Cir. 2009).

Lawrence Higgins v. Richard Morris

673 F. App'x 376 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 12, 2016

The officers moved for summary judgment, asserting that qualified immunity applied because Higgins had failed to assert a violation of a constitutional right and, in any event, their actions were reasonable. … shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” 4 “A clearly established right is

Hershey v. City of Bossier City

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 2025

Under the normal standards of qualified immunity, no “clearly established law” placed the officers on notice of Villarreal’s First Amendment right not to be arrested. … Consequently, we adhere to the general rule that for an asserted right to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, it must “have a sufficiently clear foundation in then- existing precedent

Halliburton Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

946 F.2d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 4, 1991

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 and the “act of state” doctrine rendered Iran immune from any suit by Halliburton in the United States based on expropriation. … Bancomer, S.A., 764 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir.1985) (discussing act of state doctrine and sovereign immunity).

Pinkerton v. Spellings

529 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 28, 2008

Widnall, 79 F.3d 1003, 1005 n.4 (10th Cir. 1996) (“As establishment of element (3), i.e. whether a § 501 plaintiff must show that his disability was the cause or a cause of termination is not necessary to the resolution of … The Court has held that Congress waived the Government’s sovereign immunity from monetary remedies for claims brought 19 Schrader v.

Roake v. Brumley

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 2025

Their display in public school classrooms, as required by H.B. 71, qualifies as a religious display. … “Generally, States are immune from suit under the terms of the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30, 39 (2021).

United States v. Bonilla

524 F.3d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 2008

Bonilla contended that the COD did not establish the subdivision he violated and that the criminal information could not be used to establish that fact, as it did not charge the attempt crime to which Bonilla eventually pleaded … Therefore, the district court could not consider the criminal information to establish that Bonilla’s offense qualified as *653 a crime of violence. 4 As to the COD, we have recognized that New York Certificates of Disposition

Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

992 F.2d 545 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 8, 1993

As noted above, section 1821a established the FSLIC Resolution Fund and names the FDIC as the fund’s manager. … FIRREA also established the FSLIC Resolution Fund and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation the manager of the FSLIC Resolution Fund.

Kimberly Diamond-Brooks v. City of Webster

597 F. App'x 809 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 18, 2015

The test for qualified immunity asks whether the defendant violated a federal constitutional right on the facts alleged and whether the right was clearly established. McClendon v. … The defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his actions were objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established legal rules at the time of the violation. Id. at 323.

Charles Mitchell v. Roel Cervantes

453 F. App'x 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 13, 2011

When analyzing whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity for an alleged constitutional violation, we determine whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional … We also consider “whether the defendant’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question.” Freeman v.

Delores J. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITE-WILSON MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee

660 F.2d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 1981

Plaintiff further established that, although qualified, she was rejected and that the clinic continued interviewing applicants for the position after her rejection. It is the testimony of Mrs. … To establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the plaintiff must show: “(i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants;

Mims v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co

200 F.2d 800 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 1952

The question, I think, is more one of qualified privilege than of publication, and on the issue of qualified privilege the case comes within the rule announced by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. … This necessarily follows from the establishment of the fact (settled by the verdict) that the defamatory statement was not covered by the privilege of the communication.

La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Harris Cty Repub

29 F.4th 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 25, 2022

We express no views on whether those interests are sufficient to establish the private plaintiffs’ standing. See Newby v. … The Committees have established that their interest may be impaired if they are denied intervention.

Agnes Wiggins v. United States of America, Through the Department of the Army

799 F.2d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 12, 1986

Appellant concedes the weight of authority clearly favors a discretionary function exception read into § 745 of the Suits in Admiralty Act. She relies, however, upon the ease of DeBardeleben Marine Corp. v. … In making this claim, appellant relies upon the well established law deriving from the leading case of Indian Towing Co. v.

Kathryn Rothkamm v. USA

802 F.3d 699 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 21, 2015

The Supreme Court has “said on many occasions that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be ‘unequivocally expressed’ in statutory text.” 8 Legislative history cannot supply a waiver that is not clearly evident from the language … First, under Chevron, if the language of the statute, § 7811(d), clearly provides for tolling (i.e., a waiver of sovereign immunity), then that ends the inquiry.