Case law

McQuagge v. Heil Trailer International Co.

602 F. App'x 977 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 24, 2015

McQuagge appealed, contending that the record did not establish that he was Heil Trailer’s employee and thus barred from asserting his claim. We affirm. I. … First, we considered in Brown whether a supplied employee was a borrowed servant for the purposes of tort immunity under the Longshore.and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. *980 § 905 (a). 15 Brown did not address

Jacobsen v. Moser (In Re Jacobsen)

609 F.3d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 2010

The court found that Jacobsen’s right to dismiss the Chapter 13 case was qualified by an exception for bad faith, id. at 810–11, that Jacobsen’s conduct established bad faith, id. at 811, and that Jacobsen’s bad faith constituted … “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id.

Mrs. Margaret Burnside v. James Byars

363 F.2d 744 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 21, 1966

and to encourage the members of their community to exercise their civil rights. 5 The right to communicate a matter of vital public concern is embraced in the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and therefore is clearly … The establishment of an educational program requires the formulation of rules and regulations necessary for the maintenance of an orderly program of classroom learning.

State v. United States

891 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 1, 2018

As Nevada reminds us, 42 U.S.C. § 10139 does clearly speak of jurisdiction. … Almost all "failure[s] to act" would be ongoing by definition, and would be immunized from the 180-day deadline that Congress provided.

Harold Glenn Whitaker v. Harvell-Kilgore Corporation and Day & Zimmerman, Inc., Lura Madden Whitaker v. Harvell-Kilgore Corporation and Day & Zimmerman, Inc.

418 F.2d 1010 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 3, 1969

It was essential that the Government supervise closely the expenditures made and the specifications and standards established by it. … On this reasoning Kilgore claims sovereign immunity. However, this position by this outside supplier is untenable. Kilgore was clearly an independent contractor and is not entitled to sovereign immunity.

Castille v. City of Dallas, TX

95 F.3d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 1996

immunity. … Ct. 2727, 2738 (1982), the qualified immunity defense shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

United States v. Rondrick Gray

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

immunity. … Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 565 n.8 (2004) (describing the inquiry for good faith under the Fourth Amendment as the same as the objective-reasonableness prong under qualified immunity).

Ramon Portillo and Dolores Portillo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

988 F.2d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 13, 1993

To qualify as a prevailing party, the tax litigant must establish that the position of the United States in the underlying litigation was not “substantially justified.” 26 U.S.C. § 7430 (c)(4)(A)(i). … In addition, to qualify under the statute, a litigant must show that administrative remedies were exhausted.

In the Matter Of: Larry Williams Shannon Britton Williams, Debtors. Larry Williams v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 520

337 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 2003

Other bankruptcy courts have held that a contempt judgment against a debtor in bankruptcy is immune from discharge under Section 523(a)(6). … The conclusion of the bankruptcy court is not clearly erroneous.

Hightower v. Texas Hospital Association

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

The court also concluded that Title I, section 1003(b)(1), is inapplicable because of clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary. … Id. at 919. 36 Alternatively, if the "established and maintained" language of section 1321(b)(2) was adopted, a governmental entity could not take over a private pension plan and qualify for an ERISA exemption.

Anderson v. Johnson

338 F.3d 382 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 2003

Discussion The “clearly established federal law” applicable to Anderson’s claim is the familiar two-prong test of Strickland v. … Murphy, 96 F.3d 856, 871 (7th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 34 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Neal, 286 F.3d at 235 (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established [f]ederal law, as

Brown v. Kinney Shoe Corp.

237 F.3d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 15, 2001

These two claims, however, were not clearly separated at trial. The same evidence was presented to support both claims. … Foot Locker contends that the evidence indisputably showed that Brown had not performed well enough to qualify for a promotion to a higher volume store, that he was less qualified than the individual who did get the promotion

National Labor Relations Board v. Anchor Rome Mills, Inc.

228 F.2d 775 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 8, 1956

aforementioned, the personnel director made inquiries and statements to at least five striker-applicants which had a tendency to discourage the strikers from applying for reemployment; and that this conduct on his part clearly … Respondent’s first contention is clearly without merit. The two charges were couched in broad language.

Villafranca v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 17, 2009

Olson, 546 U.S. 43 (2005).4 In Olson, the Supreme Court held that state-defined immunity (or waiver of immunity) cannot be applied to determine whether the Government has waived immunity for a particular FTCA claim … “Cause in fact is established when the act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries, and without it, the harm would not have occurred.” IHS, 143 S.W.3d at 799.

George Chiles v. G. G. Hempstead

426 F. App'x 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2011

The district court determined that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. We AFFIRM. In February 2008, Officer G.G. … Chiles must show both that Hempstead violated a clearly established constitutional right, and that she was not objectively reasonable in such a violation. Id. at 257.

Annie Mae Carpenter, Cross-Appellants v. Stephen F. Austin State University, Cross-Appellees

706 F.2d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 6, 1983

As we have stated, the plaintiffs clearly showed the disparate impact of the educational qualifications. … It found that any disparate impact of the Teachers Retirement System’s eligibility requirements or operation to be “immunized” by section 703(h), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h), which allows an employer to apply different standards

Fields v. Stephen F. Austin State University

611 F. App'x 830 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2015

“[A] plaintiff seeking to defeat qualified immunity must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … Because no constitutional violation is shown, we need not address the second prong of qualified immunity.

McNeal v. Burlington Factory

129 F. App'x 110 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 27, 2005

They contend that Damita’s consent to search was not freely and voluntarily given, and that Officer Montgomery and Officer Mack are not entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an officer from suit if the officer’s actions were reasonable “in light of clearly established law and the information the . . . officers possessed.” Anderson v.

Estrada v. Ahrens

296 F.2d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 30, 1961

If the judgment of dismissal is based on a finding that Estrada withdrew his application, it is clearly erroneous. No evidence in the record supports this finding. B. … Here, the act of the plaintiffs in bringing suit automatically establishes consent to jurisdiction. Adam v.

Aldridge v. MS Dept of Corrections

990 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2021

State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter or a maximum workweek 1 Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd. v. … After the DOC removed the case to federal court, and after that court denied Employees’ motion to remand, the district court concluded that the DOC was entitled to sovereign immunity on the FLSA claims.