Case law

United States v. Cantu

185 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 1999

The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the underlying facts that establish the breach by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Wittie, 25 F.3d 250, 262 (5th Cir. 1994). … Finally, the record clearly indicates that the jury acquitted Cantu on count one. Any variation which may have occurred with respect to that count had no bearing on Cantu’s conviction for conspiracy under count two.

Louisiana Ex Rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Insurance

536 F.3d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 2008

Further, Louisiana contends that this court cannot hold that it constructively consents to or waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity because the Supreme Court has established that a state can only waive such immunity by express … The Eleventh Amendment confirmed rather than established sovereign immunity as a constitutional principle; it follows that the scope of the State’s immunity from suit is demarcated not by the text of the Amendment alone but

Esther Panlilio v. Dallas Independent School District

643 F.2d 315 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 1981

To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection.... … Panlilio met the burden of establishing a prima facie case, however, when we then examine the evidence adduced by DISD in order to rebut Ms.

Mississippi Power & Light Company v. United Gas Pipe Line Company, State of Mississippi, Plaintiff-Intervenor

532 F.2d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 27, 1976

Finally, the Commission could clearly articulate whether in its view the presence or absence of damages significantly affects the allocation decision. … We believe it would be beneficial for the Commission to address the issue of contract liability in a proceeding where the damage action was clearly before it.

Johnson v. Louisiana Dept. of Agriculture

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 12, 1994

But it was persuaded that qualified immunity shielded the defendants from liability. Johnson argues that the law of the case precludes exonerating the defendants on qualified immunity grounds. … that 1) the defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity status and 2) a material issue of fact exists as to the defendants' claims for qualified immunity making summary judgment improper.

Walls v. Sheriff's Ofc of Caddo Prsh

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 6, 2023

To win, they must overcome qualified immunity. … But our court has repeatedly said that circuit precedent can clearly establish the law.

Armstrong v. Price

190 F. App'x 350 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 2006

“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “If the allegations do not establish the violation of a constitutional right, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. . . .

D & J Invst of Cenla v. Baker Hughes

52 F.4th 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 17, 2022

making the decision to certify under Rule 54(b), “the district court must consider judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved.” 11 “So long as the district court’s certification is not ‘clearly … These bases for certification were not clearly unreasonable.

Martin v. Miller

65 F.3d 434 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 1995

I A We should establish at the outset what this particular libel is and what it is not. … Clearly, Martin's double wage claim is within this broad waiver of sovereign immunity.

United States v. Jackson

625 F.3d 875 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 8, 2010

In its closing argument in this case, the government clearly relied on the drug ledgers provided to Officer Hight by Arturo Valdez. … affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial — they are not testimonial.”

Samuel Williams v. Christopher Epps

562 F. App'x 192 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2014

The jury was instructed on the defense of qualified immunity, and was told that Hampton is not liable if “her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules clearly established at the time of the incident … Once again, she made no argument relating to qualified immunity. Accordingly, because Hampton did not raise the issue of qualified immunity before the district court, we review for plain error.

Robert Bonner v. Bob Alford

594 F. App'x 266 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 25, 2015

of the plaintiff and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Because Bonner has failed to show that the appellees violated a clearly established constitutional right, the appellees were entitled to qualified immunity on Bonner’s claims. See Lytle v.

Vanhoy v. United States

514 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 17, 2008

Heym 29 an FTCA case in which the government requested that a damages award take the form of a judicially established trust for the victim’s benefit. … The relaxation of sovereign immunity is peculiarly a matter of legislative concern, responsibility and policy.

Rose Walter v. Horseshoe Casino & Hotel

483 F. App'x 884 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 6, 2012

Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 95 (5th Cir. 1995), “[i]f conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … The law is not established in this circuit, however, as to whether private entities such as these are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity.

Coones v. Cogburn

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 2025

However, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity if the alleged actions violated a right that was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Baker v. … Based on these cases, Baker is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage because her alleged violation of the Eighth Amendment is contrary to clearly established law. c.

Estate of C.A. v. Terry Grier

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 20, 2014

Individual Defendants’ Qualified Immunity State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Even if they did, their arguments would fail under the qualified immunity test’s second requirement that the constitutional violation be “clearly established.” A.

Susan Graziosi v. City of Greenville Mississippi

775 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 9, 2015

Finally, Greenville argued that assuming Graziosi had a successful claim, Chief Cannon was entitled to qualified immunity. … First Student, Whether the district court properly found that Chief Cannon was entitled to qualified 5 immunity is not an issue on appeal.

Hudspeth v. City of Shreveport

270 F. App'x 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 19, 2008

No. 07-30260 constitutional standard in light of the information available to [them] and the clearly established law’”. … To determine whether a defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, a more than well-established two-step analysis is employed.

Joyce Ann BURDINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Defendant-Appellee

608 F.2d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 1979

In order to establish a prima facie case, plaintiff must show that (1) she belongs to a group protected by Title VII, (2) she applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants, (3) despite … While Fuller admitted that the Project Director need have no degree, we believe that the trial court’s implicit evidentiary finding that Watts was better qualified is not clearly erroneous.

Bodin v. United States

462 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2006

Vagshenian’s tortious conduct was not motivated to an appreciable extent by the VA’s purposes was clearly erroneous or that the court misapplied Texas law. … The actual assault “thus serves only to establish the extent of the plaintiffs injury, not to establish the ... breach of duty.” Thigpen v.