Case law

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States of America v. Douglas Stevens

510 F.2d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 28, 1975

Although reminded that he was testifying under a grant of immunity, he would state only his name and address and indicate that he was not an American citizen. … The appellant’s reliance on Tierney and Beverly is clearly misplaced. A significant aspect of both those decisions is their failure to specify any indispensable ingredients of an effective § 3504 denial.

Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Sarasota-Fruitville Drainage District

251 F.2d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 14, 1958

established that a drainage district is not liable for its torts. … The immunity of the drainage district from liability for torts is for the benefit of the landowners of the district and to insure that their tax moneys will be applied to the purposes for which the drainage district was established

South Central United Food & Commercial Workers Unions & Employers Health & Welfare Trust v. Appletree Markets, Inc.

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

event under a multiemployer plan and the entity subsequently establishes a group health plan for its own employees. … is clearly not an event that terminates the Board’s obligations to provide COBRA coverage to the SCP Qualified Beneficiaries.

Laird Palmer v. Garson C. Jackson, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas in Its Statutory Role Pursuant to the State Bar Act of Texas

617 F.2d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 19, 1980

In their first cause of action, they allege that the conduct of the defendants-appellees deprived appellants and the class they represent of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution. … Clearly, a state court finding in appellants’ favor on the legality of the onetime fee assessment under Texas law would moot two of appellant’s claims under federal law.

Claiborne v. Illinois Central Railroad

583 F.2d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 2, 1978

The factual conclusions underlying the trial court’s determination of the plaintiffs’ rightful places are not clearly erroneous. … If carmen were needed and no apprentices were available, qualified helpers could be set up. In addition, qualified laborers could be recruited as apprentices or promoted to helpers, and could then be set up.

Childress v. Johnson

103 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 1997

In these circumstances, we find it most useful to inquire whether the state courts’ resolution of appellant’s Sixth Amendment claim was “contrary to” federal law as clearly established by decisions of the Supreme Court … Our precedents clearly establish that if the advice of counsel falls below the minimum required by the Sixth Amendment, the guilty plea cannot be deemed knowing and voluntary because it does not represent an informed waiver

Nicole Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Company

915 F.3d 328 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 6, 2019

similarly qualified but outside the protected class were treated more favorably. … To begin with, Wittmer failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Thomas Johnson v. Uncle Ben's, Inc.

965 F.2d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1992

UBI argued at trial and on appeal that workers qualified to hold jobs in the lower zones of a job category were not necessarily qualified to hold higher jobs in the same category. … This cannot suffice to establish a prima facie case. Wards Cove, 109 S.Ct. at 2124-25 .

Brown v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

647 F.3d 221 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 2011

Subparagraphs (C) and (D) require that in order to be qualified, a DRO must clearly specify certain information, and must not require benefits to be paid in a way that would be inconsistent with the plan or with a previous … Cal. 2009) (“The plain language of this provision only bars a QDRO from requiring a plan to affirmatively afford a type or form of benefit not established under that plan.”); Smith v. Estate of Smith, 248 F.

United States v. Hayes International Corp.

415 F.2d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 19, 1969

The motion for preliminary injunction clearly set forth the government’s theory as to what established the pattern or practice of resistance and the impact on that of *1043 the changed events. … Whenever a qualified Negro employee is discriminatorily denied a chance to fill a position for which he is qualified and has the seniority to obtain, he suffers irreparable injury and so does the labor force of the country

Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the Army

530 F.2d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 4, 1976

Sovereign Immunity We need not pause long over the sovereign immunity defense — indeed, the Corps has not even bothered to pursue this argument on appeal. Since Estrada v. … Abbott Labs established a method for analyzing cases in which the timeliness of judicial review poses a problem.

Thomas v. Comstock

222 F. App'x 439 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 16, 2007

Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 512 (1994) (“[Q]ualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in [the] light of clearly established law”.). … Accordingly, pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, Lieutenant Comstock is entitled to JML. III.

Johnson v. LA Dept of Education

343 F.3d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 5, 2003

§ 2000d-73 clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally conditions the receipt of federal funds on a state’s waiver of sovereign immunity under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. … statute than the one that must be cleared to establish “knowing waiver” of sovereign immunity under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.11 As the College Savings Bank Court explained

JohnJay Portillo v. Gregory Cunningham

872 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 6, 2017

The defendants moved to dismiss on a number of grounds, including res judicata, qualified immunity, and time- liness. The court dismissed for failure to state a claim. … Rather, they pointed out that the common-law claims were res judicata, and they raised other grounds, such as qualified immunity, against the § 1983 claims.

Murray v. Earle

334 F. App'x 602 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2009

Accordingly, qualified immunity would also apply to Murray’s Sixth Amendment claims. D. … This claim, even if accepted as true, does not allege a violation of § 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, nor would a reasonable official understand that such conduct violated any clearly-established constitutional right.

E. A. McQuade Tours, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Consolidated Air Tour Manual Committee, Defendants-Appellants-Cross

467 F.2d 178 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 8, 1973

Section 4 is phrased in the disjunctive; an injury to either business or property will suffice, and McQuade has clearly shown the former. … Owing to our disposition of this appeal, we do not reach the issue of antitrust immunity.

Andrew Hawkins v. Town of Shaw, Mississippi

461 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 27, 1972

However, the record proof does clearly establish conduct which cannot be judicially approved. … Without attempting to determine to what extent Section 1983 and its enforcing Section 1343 are available only when the “right or immunity is one of personal liberty, not dependent for its existence upon the infringement of

Scott W. Allen, Jr. v. Charles M. Lokey, Trustee

307 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 1962

“[T]o regain such property the claimant must affirmatively establish his own right to possession by proving ownership, absolute or qualified. … We may not, therefore, set aside the referee’s findings if they are not “clearly erroneous.” Lines v.

Kingsville Independent School District, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff- Cross-Appellee v. Janet Cooper, Cross-Appellant

611 F.2d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 1980

Finally, the District contends that even if it is subject to suit under § 1983, it is entitled to qualified immunity — and thus to a good faith defense — on the basis of Wood v. … The findings that the Sunshine project precipitated the nonrenewal and that other complaints about Cooper were minimal in effect are not clearly erroneous.

Victoria Rizzo v. Children's World Learning Centers, Inc.

213 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 26, 2000

The evidence was clearly sufficient to support this jury finding. B. CWLC argues next that Ms. … This is sufficient evidence to establish an adverse employment action.