Case law

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

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.

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.

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).

23 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1610, 24 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,247, 7 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1409 Mariano S. Falcon, Cross-Appellant v. General Telephone Company of the Southwest, Cross-Appellee

626 F.2d 369 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 27, 1980

We conclude that the finding was not clearly erroneous. 54 As stated previously, General said that it felt Falcon was not the most qualified applicant for any of the openings. … promoted above him, as qualified as another, and less qualified than the third. 13 Similar findings by EEOC investigators in other cases have been described as "highly probative" by this Court.

Pennzoil Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

671 F.2d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 1982

The requirement does not act to deny collection of a price for which the gas qualifies under controlling definitional criteria; rather, the history of its development shows clearly that it is itself a part of the definition … Much energy has been expended in attempts clearly to articulate this elusive standard of review.

Red v. Baum (In re Red)

96 F. App'x 229 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 3, 2004

While the bankruptcy court’s finding cannot establish Red’s subjective intent, it does demonstrate an objective substantial certainty of injury. … Whether the bankruptcy court’s factual determinations were clearly erroneous.

Christopher White v. Howard Brown

583 F. App'x 449 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 4, 2014

Because the defendants asserted qualified immunity, White had the burden of “establishing that the [defendants’] allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding … White has failed to carry his burden in opposing summary judgment based on qualified immunity. See Gates, 537 F.3d at 419.

Pelayo v. U.S. Border Patrol Agent 1

82 F. App'x 986 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2003

P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff's Bivens1 suit based on qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official performing discretionary functions from civil liability if his conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable

Monceaux v. Batson

266 F. App'x 362 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 2008

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity. … the right clearly established within the context of the case?

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

Wilkerson v. United States

67 F.3d 112 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 23, 1995

II We review the district court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Barrett v. United States, 51 F.3d 475, 478 (5th Cir.1995) (citing Robicheaux v. … The United States is immune from suit except as it waives its sovereign immunity. FDIC v. Meyer, --- U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1000, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994); United States v.

St. Romain v. Industrial Fabrication & Repair Service, Inc.

203 F.3d 376 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 24, 2000

Romain did not qualify as a Jones Act seaman because he did not establish that he worked aboard an identifiable fleet of vessels. The district court also granted Superior’s motion to strike St. … This we decline to do and, rather, resort to developed workable standards for determining who qualifies as a seaman under the Jones Act. In doing so we must decline to depart from these established principles.