Case law

Cano v. Faust

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 14, 2023

The doctrine of qualified immunity “alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” in that the plaintiff has the burden of showing that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Valderas v. … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, we review: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Johnson v. City of Monroe

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 3, 2024

To determine whether qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim, we ask (1) whether “the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right was clearly established.” Cunningham v. … In reviewing whether qualified immunity is proper, we may limit our analysis to the “clearly established” prong. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236–37 (2009).

The Tonkawa Tribe v. Richards

75 F.3d 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 9, 1996

Ed. 2d 209 (1986); (2) Congress has clearly expressed its intent to abrogate or limit that immunity through its legislative authority, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 333-34, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 59 L. … The district court found that Congress clearly intended to abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted the Nonintercourse Act and had the power to do so under the Indian Commerce Clause

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAYES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

456 F.2d 112 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 22, 1972

We conclude that the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the ASES system of referral was not discriminatory. Since 1968 29% of the applicants referred were negro and 30.6% were hired. … The Eighth Circuit lias held that statistics alone can, as a matter of law, establish a Title YII violation. Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 8 Cir. 1971, 433 F.2d 421, 426 . 7 .

Mueck v. La Grange Acquisitions

75 F.4th 469 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 21, 2023

Similarly, his ability to concentrate, think clearly, and make decisions was greatly impaired during a binge. … still qualify as a disability.

23 Fair empl.prac.cas. 159, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,037 Angelita Ramirez v. Fred Hofheinz

619 F.2d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 18, 1980

As indicated above, the district court found that the plaintiffs were not qualified for the positions they sought and that the defendants chose others only because they were qualified. … In either case, a prima facie case is established only by showing, among other things, that the person was qualified for the job denied him or her. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Thomas Martone v. Walter Robb, III

902 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 4, 2018

ERISA “protects participants in voluntarily established, private sector retirement plans . . . … as a ‘qualified change in investment options.’”

Hobbs v. EVO

7 F.4th 241 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 27, 2021

An employee must receive a “high” level of compensation to qualify for this exemption. … In light of this evidence, the fact that “every well is different” to some degree does not establish that field engineers were regularly making discretionary decisions outside of EVO’s established guidelines and

Fred Loyd Hayes and Kenneth Ray McMaster v. United States

464 F.2d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 3, 1972

Breckenridge, 1971, 403 U.S. 88 , 91 S.Ct. 1790 , 29 L.Ed.2d 338 , no showing of “state action” is necessary to establish a violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 . Griffin v. … more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

Mi Familia Vota v. Greg Abbott, Governor, e

977 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 14, 2020

Suspend the requirement that curbside voters must qualify as having a disability or, alternatively, order that any voter may identify as “disabled” due to the threat that the coronavirus poses to … There is no sovereign immunity with respect to the Voting Rights Act claims.

James H. Newberry v. East Texas State University William Wadley Robert E. Houston

161 F.3d 276 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 1998

The court dismissed the §§ 1985 and 1986 claims on the basis that Wadley and Houston were protected by qualified immunity. … The jury found that Newberry was not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA, and the court entered judgment on the verdict. Newberry appeals.

United States v. Neary (In Re Armstrong)

206 F.3d 465 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 8, 2000

The IRS argues and the bankruptcy court found that the trustee’s refund claim, filed in 1996, was outside the statute of limitations established by I.R.C. § 6511. … The trustee filed too late for his refund claim to qualify as a compulsory counterclaim, and his argument regarding the statute of limitations’ inapplicability to compulsory counterclaims is therefore moot.

Hightower v. Texas Hospital Ass'n

65 F.3d 443 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 1995

The parties agree that the Plan qualifies as an employee pension benefit plan under 29 U.S.C. section 1002 (2)(A). … The court also concluded that Title I, section 1003(b)(1), is inapplicable because of clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.

Beroid v. Lafleur

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 2023

establish ‘(1) [an] injury (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness of which was clearly unreasonable.’” … alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and second, whether the right was clearly established.”

Beall v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 23, 2003

Meyer, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1000 (1994) (“Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature. . . . Therefore, we must first decide whether . . . immunity has been waived.”). … An abuse of discretion necessarily occurs where an act can only be described as clearly improper. See, e.g., United States v.

James E. Clark, Cross-Appellee v. Golden Rule Insurance Co., Cross-Appellant

887 F.2d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

Expert medical testimony established that current standards recommend that these levels not exceed 200. … Once again, the district court was not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Hearod

499 F.2d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 26, 1974

The doctor’s testimony here was clearly relevant to a determination of the existence and cause of the injuries. These issues remained present in the case despite defendant’s opening admission. See United States v. … Section 242 provides : “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Griffin v. Edwards

116 F.3d 479 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 1997

defense of qualified immunity. … Next, we must ascertain whether Griffin’s claims set forth specific facts establishing the violation of a clearly established right. Id.

4 Fair empl.prac.cas. 864, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7892 Bernice Armstead v. Starkville Municipal Separate School District

461 F.2d 276 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 9, 1972

As an alternative to “1” above, a teacher may qualify by holding a Master’s Degree in any field or by holding an AA Teaching Certificate. 4. … Clearly under Singleton v.

United States v. Martin Willard Houltin and Kenneth B. Phillips

566 F.2d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 30, 1978

Defendants make much of the fact that the Government compelled codefendants’ testimony by granting them use immunity. … A careful reading of this Court’s opinion in defendants’ first appeal clearly establishes that we grounded the reversal of their convictions upon a procedural defect in the trial court — the admission of evidence resulting