Case law

In The Matter Of Lindsey

995 F.2d 626 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 23, 1993

Nonrecourse notes clearly fall within this definition. At the very least, a creditor's right to act against collateral is a "right to an equitable remedy" for a debtor's breach of obligation. … Because FDIC undeniably has a "claim" against Lindsey, as established above, the FDIC note constitutes part of Lindsey's "debt."

Bob T. Moore and Susan Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc. And Ashland Oil, Inc.

126 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 1997

The court clearly concluded that Dr. Jenkins was qualified as an expert and could testify as to his diagnosis and treatment of Moore. R. Vol. 6 at 27. But the court stated that it could not determine whether Dr. … Jenkins’ testimony as to cause of disease under Rule 702 were invalid because they were based on the court’s clearly erroneous factual findings and its misunderstanding of the relevance of facts clearly established by the

Max-George v. Ashcroft

205 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 24, 2000

The Court found the latter too speculative to qualify as a legitimate collateral consequence. Id. Spencer, however, countenances only a minor modification to Umanzor. … from judicial control” and that, in the context of IIRIRA, that “Congress has clearly indicated that it desires minimal judicial intrusion into deportation decisions”).

United States v. Sealed Search Warrants

868 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 21, 2017

To guide the determination of whether a First Amendment right of access exists, the Supreme Court has established a two-part inquiry: “(1) whether the proceeding has historically been open to the public and press; and … The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s qualified immunity-based dismissal of the Bivens claim against the agent, reasoning that the plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts (many of which were unavailable because

United States v. Ragsdale

426 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 2005

Julian, Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that the videotapes themselves are sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding o f obscenity. … We are not persuaded by Tamara’s argument that the jury was not qualified to determine the local community standards.

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.

Anokwuru v. City of Houston

990 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 16, 2021

The City also asserted that Officer Francis was protected from suit by qualified immunity. Anokwuru did not file a reply. … Aligning with the district court’s decision, the City counters that the arrest was reasonable and established no constitutional violation. We agree with the City.

Thompson v. Hammond City

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 11, 2023

immunity. … Once an official pleads the defense, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly

Spec's Family Partners v. Jones

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 26, 2021

Defendants assert qualified immunity. “When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the inapplicability of that defense. … Because Spec’s has not pleaded a violation, we do not address the clearly established prong.

Copsey v. Swearingen

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 23, 1994

Therefore, we agree with the district court that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … We also conclude that the district court erred in awarding qualified immunity to Swearingen.

Mobil Oil Corporation v. Claude Kelley, Director of the Department of Conservation, Etc.

493 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 14, 1974

had no jurisdiction as to the state itself by virtue of the State Immunity Amendment. … The construction given the pleadings by the trial court after hearing the evidence, was not clearly in error.

First Texas Savings Ass'n v. Reed

700 F.2d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 21, 1983

Whether or not Gallagher paid fair market value for the items was not established, but the stock had been purchased only one month earlier for $15,000. … Nonetheless, the phrase, “[a]s under current law,” qualifies the apparently blanket approval of conversion, since as noted above, courts denied exemptions under the Act if there was extrinsic evidence of actual intent to

Lamar Wallace v. Texaco, Inc.

681 F.2d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 1982

In order to qualify as a third party beneficiary, Wallace must establish that the Texaco-Automation contract was a stipulation pour autrui; a contract for the benefit of others. … There is no indication that the contracting parties clearly intended to convey the benefit of transportation upon Wallace.

United States v. Michael Nelson Oberski

734 F.2d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 8, 1984

An acceptance by the district court of a guilty plea is a factual finding reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. … the statute would be weakened if the government could not prosecute underlying offenses not relied upon; the government might well hesitate to run the risk of bringing a § 848 prosecution and losing, if it would thereby immunize

New York Times Company v. Eugene Conner

291 F.2d 492 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 1961

Clearly the publishing of the alleged libel in New York cannot be held to be “an incident to” the performance of Salisbury’s business or service in Alabama. … “Any non-resident person, firm * * * or any corporation not qualified * * * as to doing business herein, who shall •do any business or perform any character of work or service in this state •shall, by the doing of such business

Doug Crownover v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co

772 F.3d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 2014

While this case also involves an express duty to repair work failing to conform to the requirements of contract documents, the pertinent liabilities in Gilbert are clearly distinguishable. … Thus, the evidence establishes that the damage first occurred before August 2003.

Lawrence H. Ramming v. United States of America, John Thomas Cloud v. United States

281 F.3d 158 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 19, 2001

This is consistent with the well-established policy that the plaintiff be given every opportunity to state a claim. Hitt, 561 F.2d at 608 . … Limitations periods in statutes waiving sovereign immunity are jurisdictional, and a court exercising its equitable authority may not expand its jurisdiction beyond the limits established by Congress.

Tetco Metal Products, Inc. v. Glenn C. Langham and Imogene N. Langham

387 F.2d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 15, 1968

This case clearly falls into the latter category insofar as the shipping of goods to independent retailers is concerned. … However, no questions even remotely designed to establish that Teteo was doing business in Alabama were asked of him. 4 . See note 1, supra.

Hightower v. Texas Hosp. Ass'n

73 F.3d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 1995

The court also concluded that Title I, section 1003(b)(1), is inapplicable because of clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary. … 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

McClure v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Corrections Department

459 F. App'x 348 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 20, 2012

clearly established law.” … We have the discretion to decide which prong of the qualified immunity analysis will be addressed first. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).