Case law

Gaddis v. United States

381 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 12, 2004

In this regard, it is telling that an ad litem need not even be an expert to qualify for appointment under rule 17(c). … Clearly and unmistakably communicated; directly stated.”); Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 645 (Merriam-Webster 1998) ("la: directly, firmly, and explicitly -stated, b: Exact, Precise.”) .

David Neubauer v. City of McAllen Texas, Calvin Gibson, C.D. Mussey, and Frank Jurek

766 F.2d 1567 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

There, the Supreme Court applied an objective test to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983. 17 The Court held that officials are shielded from liability unless their conduct violates … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 102 S.Ct. at 2738.

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.

Frederick Grim v. Marshall Fisher

816 F.3d 296 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 8, 2016

Turning to the determination of clearly established law, the magistrate judge framed the question as being Awhether clearly established federal law forbids introducing a forensic lab report into evidence through the testimony … >it cannot be said that the state court unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] clearly established Federal law.=@); Wood v.

Traweek v. LeBlanc

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 2022

violations of inmates’ clearly established rights to timely release was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.” … The first determination is “that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Id.

Vela v. City of Houston

276 F.3d 659 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 14, 2001

City regulations do not require a college degree to qualify as a paramedic or EMT. … Nothing in the record suggests that this finding was clearly erroneous.

Braidwood Mgmt v. Becerra

104 F.4th 930 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 2024

The Government argued below that Task Force members were merely “private citizens” and did not qualify as officers under Article II. … The remedial theory seems to be well established, however, in a few of our sister circuits. The D.C.

Wesley P. Bernard, Elton Hayes, Rodney Tizeno, Nence Brown, Doris Whitley and Willie Johnson v. Gulf Oil Corp.

890 F.2d 735 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 1989

We decline to establish a bright line cut-off point for the establishment of job-relatedness in testing. In Watson v. … Green, such a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) he belongs to a group protected by Title VII; (b) he was qualified for the job; (c) he was not promoted; and (d

Kendall Stout v. Borg-Warner Corporation

933 F.2d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 1991

McDonnell Douglas Corp., 890 F.2d 698, 701 (4th Cir.1989) (governmental participation in various stages of product’s development establishes military contractor defense); Harduvel v. … The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the air conditioner example given by the Supreme Court in Boyle. Boyle, 108 S.Ct. at 2516 .

Keith J. Hudson v. Jack McMillian Cso III

929 F.2d 1014 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 1990

In light of the standards established by this court’s intervening decision in Hu-guet v. Barnett, 900 F.2d 838 (5th Cir. 1990), and progeny, however, we must reverse. Keith J. … The conduct of McMillian and Woods qualified as clearly excessive and occasioned unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Hudson’s claim, however, founders on the significant injury prong.

Kenneth Donaldson v. J. B. O'connor, M.D. And John Gumanis, M.D.

493 F.2d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 26, 1974

This in turn requires that, at least for the nondangerous patient, constitutionally minimum standards of treatment be established and enforced. … Instead, we and other courts have applied what the Adamian court called the “good faith for qualified governmental immunity” test, allowing immunity when (1) the officer’s acts were discretionary; and (2) the officer was

Dafro M. JEFFERIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION ASSOCIATION, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

693 F.2d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 1982

Under established limits upon appellate review, especially the requirement that the trier’s factual findings be not disturbed unless clearly erroneous, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), we must affirm. … Under this non-clearly erroneous finding of fact, the plaintiff Jefferies’ case falls, for the promotion of a better qualified applicant is a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for preferring the successful applicant

Coryell v. Phipps

128 F.2d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 9, 1942

It is contended that Phipps should have been held liable because, although the legal title to the houseboat was in the Seminole Boat Company, a Delaware corporation, the evidence clearly showed that Phipps was the actual … of the corporate fiction and the immunity that it carries, and that its activities in reality were those of Phipps personally. 1 This burden 1 was not discharged.

Julita David Robertson v. United States

417 F.2d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 1969

The registrant bears the burden of clearly establishing his right to the ministerial exemption. … The minutes of the October 14, 1965 meeting clearly show that the local board reviewed, as it was its duty to do, all of the facts pertaining to appellant’s “preaching activities” and that it reviewed the photostatic copy

Feliz Talaz Villegas v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

184 F.3d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 14, 1999

Neither AEDPA nor its legislative history explains which state filings qualify as properly filed applications. See S.Rep. No. 104-179 (1995), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 924; H.R. Conf. Rep. … So too could Congress have crafted a provision that clearly withheld tolling from prisoners filing in state court successive petitions or petitions containing procedurally barred claims.

Javier Flores v. Mike Pompeo

936 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 2019

He attempted to establish his presence in Texas by submitting lease documents for the Texas apartments and credit card statements showing purchases in Texas during that time period. … A limitation or condition on the scope of a statute is jurisdictional if Congress “clearly states” that it is jurisdictional. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 515–16 (2006).

Littlefield v. Forney Independent School District

268 F.3d 275 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 17, 2001

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … The district court did not reach the qualified immunity issue. Plaintiffs timely appeal the grant of summary judgment. II.

Rodriguez v. East Texas Motor Freight

505 F.2d 40 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 25, 1974

of liability or damages to any class is clearly erroneous. … The district court’s finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous. IV.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Josephine N. Thebaut and Charles R. Thebaut, Jr.

361 F.2d 428 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 27, 1966

Clearly this interpretation of the statute does not authorize exclusion of a non-qualifying gift of principal simply because it is accompanied by a qualifying gift of income. … United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 348 F.2d 577 , as establishing the broad principle that a gift of principal in trust qualifies as a present interest under Section 2503(c) even in the absence of the trust instrument’s express

8 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1246, 8 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9811 Jesse Rodriguez, Sadrach G. Perez and Modesto Herrera, on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. East Texas Motor Freight, Southern Conference of Teamsters and Teamsters Local657

505 F.2d 40 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 25, 1974

of liability or damages to any class is clearly erroneous. … The district court's finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous. IV.