Case law

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.

Peters v. Lowrey

114 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 12, 1997

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must allege specific facts which, if true, would demonstrate that the defendant violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … Moreover, although a substantive due process right to family integrity has been recognized, the contours of the right are nebulous and not clearly established in the context of the state taking temporary custody of a

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

Warren J. Lacombe v. A-T-O, Inc., Interstate Engineering

679 F.2d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 1982

LaCombe, however, was automatically qualified to give such testimony by virtue of his being the owner of the property. … The exclusion was clearly prejudicial. Interstate also argues that the owner cannot prevail unless his testimony has sufficient probative force to sustain a verdict.

United States v. Cesar Medina-Torres

703 F.3d 770 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2012

That a decision is persuasive authority does not affect its utility in establishing an error as plain or obvious. … But even assuming arguendo that does, it does not clearly qualify as a conviction for which Medina–Torres’ sentence could be enhanced, because his term of imprisonment was not “at least one year,” 18 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(

Melanson v. United States

256 F. 783 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 1919

The witnesses qualified .as medical experts, and were entitled, as such, to give opinion evidence. *787 The issue being whether or not the drug was dispensed in the legitimate course of defendants’ practice as physicians, … The law does not mean by this to immunize those who use the form of the relation of physician and patient as a mere method to avoid the law’s penalties, when in fact they are dispensing the drug, not to cure a patient, but

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

Carmichael v. Osherow

100 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 14, 1996

specially tailored IRAs. 2 The finding by the bankruptcy court that the full amount of the IRA was reasonably necessary for the support of Debtor and his dependents was neither appealed by Trustee nor found to be clearly … qualifying IRAs in the general exemption of paragraph (d)(10)(E).

Clinton Young v. William Stephens, Director

795 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 29, 2015

Analyzing § (d)(1), a state court’s decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if: “(1) the state court ‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing law’ announced in Supreme Court cases, or (2) the state court … Instead AEDPA requires us to consider whether it is debatable that the state court decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Georgia Power Company v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

412 F.2d 462 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 1969

The charging party’s letter related to four business establishments other than the appellant company; thus the letter was not a single charge but rather multiple charges made together. … Whatever efficacy that old bromide may have in other areas of law, it is clearly inapplicable to the socially remedial statute involved here.

Gore Incorporated v. Glickman

137 F.3d 863 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 1998

Ct. 533 (1995) ("Questions of law are subject to de novo review while findings of fact will be disturbed only if we find that they are clearly erroneous."). … It is true, of course, that “[i]n the absence of express congressional consent to the award of interest separate from a general waiver of immunity to suit, the United States is immune from an interest award.”

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.

Robinson v. Vollert

602 F.2d 87 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 1979

Because the district court found GISD qualified under subsection (A)(i), it did not reach the question whether the consent order barred HEW from denying that GISD qualified under subsection (A)(ii). … Paragraph 2 of the order clearly does not require HEW approval of any GISD applications for funds.

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.

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.

Rodney Carter v. Sid J. Champion

399 F. App'x 941 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 2010

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a petitioner must state a claim for a violation of a constitutional right, show that the constitutional right was established at the time of the actions at issue, and demonstrate that … defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the legal rules clearly established when the defendant acted.

Jamerson v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama

662 F.2d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1981

His age and experience in teaching, along with his educational background, clearly made him more qualified than plaintiff Jamerson. James W. Goode was 46 years of age at the time he was employed. … The exhibit does not establish a nonretention because of race. The totality of the evidence clearly supported a finding of a nondiscriminatory reason for nonretention, whichever criteria was used.

Terry James v. Dallas Police Department

608 F. App'x 249 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 24, 2015

immunity. … When qualified immunity is raised as a defense, there is no liability for actions that do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v.

Lake Eugenie Land Development v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.

793 F.3d 479 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 2015

That settlement agreement established a fund and an elaborate multi-tiered claims process. … Immediately appealable orders include: those rejecting absolute immunity or qualified immunity; denying a state’s claim to Elev *485 enth Amendment immunity; and — in the criminal context — a defendant’s adverse ruling on

Ruben Navarro v. City of San Juan, Texas, e

624 F. App'x 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 2015

Each of the remaining individual defendants asserted the defense of qualified immunity. “When properly applied, [qualified immunity] protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violated the law.” … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established