Case law

United States v. Harte-Hanks Newspapers, Abilene, Texas

254 F.2d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 1958

It is established law that suppression of evidence prior to an indictment should be considered only when there is a clear and definite showing that constitutional rights have been violated. Cf. United States v. … By the provisions of 15 U.S.C.A. § 32 and § 33 immunity is granted to any natural person testifying or producing records before a grand jury investigating possible violation of the anti-trust laws.

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.

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

James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Crotty Brothers Dallas, Inc.

450 F.2d 1268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 1971

Stephen’s do qualify as a “retail or service establishment.” VI. … Moreover, most of the locations named in the above passage would not have qualified under the 1961 Act as retail establishments.

Memorial Hermann v. CIR

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 2024

The IRS issued a proposed adverse determination letter concluding that MHACO did not qualify for a § 501(c)(4) tax exemption. … We may only disturb the factual findings underlying this conclusion if we conclude that they were clearly erroneous. See Nationalist Movement, 37 F.3d at 219.

Google, Incorporated v. James Hood, III

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2016

Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 705 (1992) (holding Younger abstention clearly erroneous “[a]bsent any pending proceeding in state tribunals”). … Further, whether a defendant’s actions exclusively consist of “making accessible third-party content to Internet users,” the main qualifying language in this injunction, is not always readily determinable even after a complaint

Dorothy Jean RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. David FREEMAN, Aubrey J. Wagner and William L. Jenkins, Defendants-Appellees

626 F.2d 439 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 22, 1980

Judicial claims which serve to amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus earlier EEO complaints are appropriate. … Under McDonnell Douglas, to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, Ray must prove: (1) that she belongs to a group protected by Title VII, (2) that she sought and was qualified for a job for which the employer

David Carney v. Brandon Police Department

624 F. App'x 199 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 1, 2015

A plaintiff may defeat a qualified immunity defense by showing that (1) officials violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the officials’ alleged misconduct. … The district court found the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Mrs. Carney did not establish a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.

Lyons Partnership LP v. Giannoulas

179 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 1999

Giannoulas claims that his use of a Barney look-alike clearly qualifies as a parody. … We therefore agree with the district court that Giannoulas’s use of the caricature clearly qualifies as a parody.

Mary Spearman v. Viva Spearman

482 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 1973

Unless the second wife then can establish *1206 that her husband’s first marriage has been dissolved, the first wife qualifies as the “lawful widow.” B. … This finding is not clearly erroneous, and must remain undisturbed under Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Kathryn Cheshire v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

282 F.3d 326 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 8, 2002

The Tax Court’s determination that Appellant is not entitled to innocent spouse relief under § 6015(b)(1) is not clearly erroneous. VI. … The Tax Court’s determination that Appellant *338 is not entitled to innocent spouse relief under § 6015(c) is not clearly erroneous. VII.

Johnson v. Thibodaux City

887 F.3d 726 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 17, 2018

The court granted summary judgment for the city only on plaintiffs' Monell claims 1 and on the official-capacity claims, reasoning that plaintiffs had established only a single incident, which was insufficient to establish … Accordingly, we remand for consideration of qualified immunity and, if necessary, of damages on Johnson's unlawful-arrest claims against Amador, Buchanon, Gaudet, and Thibodeaux. IV.

Ruth Bauer v. The State of Texas, the Presiding Judge of Probate Court Number 3 of Harris County, Texas

341 F.3d 352 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 18, 2003

Judges enjoy absolute immunity from liability for judicial or adjudicatory acts. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 , 108 S.Ct. 538, 545 , 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988). … A temporary guardian appointed under this subsection must qualify in the same form and manner required of a guardian under this code.

United States v. Joseph A. Nickerson and Danny Joe Hawkins

669 F.2d 1016 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 1982

During the course of the cross-examination, defense counsel elicited that Hernandez had testified in the other cases in which he had been granted immunity. … The deal was made within his hearing and he was clearly acting as the driver for the other two drug dealers.

Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Cross-Appellants v. John O. Marsh, Cross-Appellees

786 F.2d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 1986

The plaintiffs’ position neglects the important principle that waivers of sovereign immunity must be construed strictly in favor of. the sovereign. Ruckelshaus, 103 S.Ct. at 3277 . … We express no view on the question of whether the plaintiffs' role in "supporting” the government might have qualified them for a fee award against the private defendants. 9 .

Khaled Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C.

720 F.3d 620 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2013

Instead, the text of § 78u-6 clearly and unambiguously provides a single definition of “whistleblower.” … The statute, therefore, clearly expresses Congress’s intention to require individuals to report information to the SEC to qualify as a whistleblower under Dodd-Frank.

United States v. Luis Oscar Sarmiento-Perez

633 F.2d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 9, 1981

The confession’s failure to qualify as the out-of-court declaration of a coconspirator, see note 3 supra, does not directly preclude it from qualifying as a statement against interest within the intendment of Rule 804(b)( … The alleged statements clearly bore on a fundamental part of the State’s case against the petitioner.

Brandon LaVergne v. N. Burl Cain

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 14, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials against individual liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

Wirtz v. Keystone Readers Service, Inc.

418 F.2d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 14, 1969

If this office does not qualify as a retail establishment, then appellant maintains no retail establishment at all and cannot qualify for the § 13(a) (2) exemption. … Clearly if an accounting office standing alone could be a retail establishment, no necessity would exist for resorting to the more sophisticated “adjunct” argument.

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.