Case law

United States v. DeCay

620 F.3d 534 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 2010

Republique du Congo, 455 F.3d 575, 584 (5th Cir. 2006) (“The sovereign immunity claim may be raised by a garnishee as well as a foreign sovereign.”); Stena Rederi AB v. … This language is qualified only by the enumerated exceptions contained in § 3613(a)(1)–(3).

Perez v. Texas a & M University at Corpus Christi

589 F. App'x 244 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 3, 2014

STANDARD OF REVIEW “The grant of a motion to dismiss based upon qualified immunity is reviewed de novo.” Williams-Boldware v. … , if a violation is established, (2) “whether the right was clearly established” at the time of violation.

Tinoco v. City of Hidalgo

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 28, 2025

Because Tinoco did not meet his burden to show a clearly established right, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on his Fourth Amendment claim. See Cole, 935 F.3d at 451. … Because Tinoco did not meet his burden to demonstrate a clearly established right, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from his Fourteenth Amendment claims. See id.

Lopez v. Ramirez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 27, 2026

Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds including absolute legislative immunity and, alternatively, qualified immunity. … Defendants here assert absolute legislative and qualified immunity, neither of which concern the district court’s jurisdiction. Nevada v.

John M. Hagerty v. Succession of Laura McCloskey Clement

749 F.2d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 1984

The United States Supreme Court has clearly established that the assertion of judicial immunity is an absolute defense in a suit challenging a ruling or order of a court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Dennis v. … Sanctions under section 1927 are clearly warranted.

Jenkins v. Cleco Power, LLC

487 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 2007

P. 41(b) Dismissal To prevail on his ADA claim, Jenkins must establish that 1) he has a disability; 2) he is qualified for the position in which he seeks employment; and 3) he was discriminated against because … The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that an available position exists that he was qualified for and could, with reasonable accommodations, perform. Foreman v.

D.G. Ex Rel. LaNisha T. v. New Caney Independent School District

806 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

Mar. 6, 2015) (“[T]he IDEA does not establish a statute of limitations to bring a claim for attorneys’ fees in federal court.”); G-N v. City of Northampton, 60 F. Supp. 3d 267, 269 (D. … Abbott Labs., Inc., 164 F.3d 270, 275 n.7 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[A] qualifying phrase in a statute ‘usually is construed to apply to the provision or clause immediately preceding it.’”

Randle v. PNC Financial

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 2025

Officer Dixon moved for dismissal of Randle’s claims, asserting qualified immunity. … The magistrate judge recommended dismissal and concluded in its qualified immunity analysis that Randle failed to support that Officer Dixon violated clearly established law. 2 The district court adopted the magistrate judge

Crawford v. Cain

68 F.4th 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 19, 2023

And we’ve held that only a case finding deficient performance can clearly establish the law for an ineffectiveness claim under § 2254(d). … Much like qualified immunity after Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), both prongs are necessary to get relief and a court may analyze either one first. 4 Id. at 236.

United States v. Roel Angel Trevino

565 F.2d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 1978

The fact that Garza was an accomplice with a grant of immunity whose testimony was uncorroborated is not dispositive. Because such testimony is sufficient to support a conviction, e. g., United States v. … Second, and more significantly, the prior offense evidence was crucial in establishing Trevino’s intent.

Mildred Galvin v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration

860 F.2d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 21, 1988

The Federal Tort Claims Act is a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States government. … Although both parties characterize the lower court’s ruling as a dismissal, the court’s order and memorandum opinion clearly grant summary judgment for OSHA.

Leleux v. United States

178 F.3d 750 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1999

In this case, the Naval regulations at issue do not establish a duty owed to Leleux under Louisiana law. Cf. Tindall v. … United States, 901 F.3d 53, 56 n.8 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that a federal regulation alone can never establish such a duty).

Koonce v. Quaker Safety Products & Manufacturing Co.

798 F.2d 700 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 1986

Defendants have not established that they provided any warnings or instructions to Day & Zimmermann. … An expert witness is qualified by his “knowledge, skill, experience, training, *721 or education.” Fed.R.Evid. 702.

United States v. Joshua Wallace

964 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 6, 2020

That means that even if Wallace was convicted under sections 30.02(a)(1) or (2)—clearly requiring intent—those convictions would not count toward the ACCA enhancement if we determined that section 30.02(a)(3) made the entire … Having established the discussion as dicta, and therefore not binding, Wallace sets out to prove the dicta is wrong.

Jennifer Butler v. Tammy Weppelman

544 F. App'x 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 29, 2013

The district court held that Weppelman was entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. … Second, it asks whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. The court may conduct the two-pronged inquiry in any order, see Pearson v.

Henry J. Bennett, Jr. v. City of Slidell, Gerry Hinton, B.E. McDaniel Nunzio Giordano, and Patrick J. Berrigan

728 F.2d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 1984

There need be no citation of authority for the statement that these factual findings are to be upheld on appeal unless shown to be clearly erroneous and without record support. … Settled state practice .. . can establish what is state law. The Equal Protection Clause did not write an empty formalism into the Constitution.

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. 5 B. … Here, the act of the plaintiffs in bringing suit automatically establishes consent to jurisdiction. Adam v.

Northwinds Abatement, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau

258 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 11, 2001

The Texas statutes establishing an insurer of last resort for workers compensation insurance have been the subject of frequent revision and redrafting. … Employers Insurance of Wausau, 69 F.3d 1304, 1305-06 (5th Cir.1996)(Northwinds I). 3 .It is worth noting that other, more recent, Texas statutes explicitly grant immunity to member insurers.

Phillips v. Joint Legislative Committee on Performance & Expenditure Review

637 F.2d 1014 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 23, 1981

her for any of the Board’s professional positions. 38 Nor did she appear to be qualified for most clerical jobs, since she left blank the space on her application for typing and shorthand skills. 39 She was qualified, Thrash … of liability on the class claim operates to establish a prima facie case on behalf of each member of the class.

Clark v. Gonzalez

129 F.3d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 24, 1997

B Gonzalez, Sanchez, and Simmons claim qualified immunity. We conduct a bifurcated analysis to assess whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Rankin v. … Clark has therefore shown for qualified immunity purposes a violation of a clearly established right.