Case law

Esmark Apparel, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Thomas James, Thomas James, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

10 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 1994

The court also concluded that James had failed to overcome Esmark’s qualified privilege by establishing either excessive publication or actual malice on the part of the company. … To maintain its qualified privilege defense, Es-mark first must establish that the “occasion” of its alleged defamatory statement was qualifiedly privileged. See Garziano v. E.I.

Ecee, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

645 F.2d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 1981

More importantly, FERC established procedures to protect the confidentiality of the submitted information. … This Court cannot say that FERC’s interpretation, which furthers consideration of all relevant evidence, is clearly wrong. *352 3.

Arif v. Mukasey

509 F.3d 677 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2007

After determining that there can be no derivative beneficiaries for a withholding of removal claim, the BIA concluded that Petitioner had failed to establish independent eligibility for withholding of removal. … Additionally, the instruction page of the application clearly states that “[w]ithholding of removal does not apply to any spouse or child included in the application.”

Charles Warner, Jr. v. Curtis Wright

434 F. App'x 333 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 20, 2011

When a defendant pleads qualified immunity as a defense, the court must determine whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff set forth a violation of a constitutional right and whether the constitutional right was clearly … established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Billy Don Jackson v. Dan v. McKaskle Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections

729 F.2d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 12, 1984

But as to the facts upon which that conclusion is to be based, we accept the district court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. … The District Court and Magistrate below considered Magnussen’s decision to have been a tactical one, immune from collateral review. As we stated above, that finding prevails unless clearly erroneous.

Kempe v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co.

876 F.2d 1138 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 1989

. §§ 1961-1968 , (RICO) immunizes a civil complaint from the doctrine of forum non conveniens. … Therefore, appellants conclude, RICO claims should also be immune.

Davis v. Commercial Union Insurance

892 F.2d 378 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 2, 1990

These findings are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. … Weber, 542 So.2d at 554, provides support for apportioning part of the immune employer’s fault to a plaintiff who is partially at fault.

Contender Farms, L.L.P. v. United States Department of Agriculture

779 F.3d 258 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 19, 2015

Contender Farms and McGartland argue that the HPA addresses this issue and the statute clearly prohibits the Regulation. … The district court concluded that Contender Farms and McGartland clearly presented a justiciable controversy, and as we explain infra, we agree. .

Willis v. De Leon

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 24, 2025

The district court found that De Leon had qualified immunity, and we agree. … In resolving a qualified immunity claim, courts must “decide whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and determine whether the “right at issue was clearly established

Marilyn Wilson v. Ut Health Center, Ut System Police Department, Etc.

973 F.2d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 6, 1992

And any retaliation for Wilson’s speech on a matter of such prominent public concern as workplace sexual harassment represents a violation of a clearly established right, so under Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Jasma McCullough v. James Wright

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 9, 2020

Officers Wright and Pizana are entitled to qualified immunity because McCullough has failed to show that it is clearly established that a limited 5 Case: 19-20607 Document … of clearly established law.

Nevett v. Sides

571 F.2d 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 29, 1978

We find the district court’s factual determinations under Zimmer not clearly erroneous; therefore, the only primary factor that we take to be established in the appellants’ favor is the existence of a tenuous state policy … It appears that only one of the four primary factors — number (3) — has been established by plaintiffs. Factors (1) and (4) have clearly not been proved.

Irby v. Hinkle

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 15, 2023

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To defeat qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff must establish a genuine fact issue as to whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the

Celestine v. Petroleos De Venezuella SA

266 F.3d 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 2001

This Court has ruled that a plaintiff may survive summary judgment and take his case to the jury by providing evidence that 22 he was “clearly better qualified” than the employee … A review of the briefs and record excerpts reveals that none of the appellants presented competent summary judgment evidence that they were “clearly better qualified” for promotion or training

W. v. Paley

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 2021

A plaintiff can overcome an official’s qualified immunity if he can 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 … As qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, Pasco ex rel. Pasco v.

Charles Watkins v. United Steel Workers Of America, Local No. 2369

516 F.2d 41 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 1975

Accordingly, the Hayes International panel held that the recall and remanning system violated the provisions of Title VII when applied to those employees. 72 The factual situation in the case at bar is clearly distinguishable … The use of total employment seniority to establish the order of recall of employees affects each individual employee with equal force.

In the Matter of Marshall James Dyke, Debtor. William E. Heitkamp, Trustee v. Marshall James Dyke, in the Matter of Amos Daniel Felts, A/K/A Dan Felts, and Laura Otila Felts, Debtors. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for United Bank of Texas v. Amos Daniel Felts, A/K/A Dan Felts, and Laura Otila Felts

943 F.2d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 15, 1991

Id. 29 The debtor in In re Brooks, a medical doctor, held an interest in an ERISA-qualified pension plan which his professional association established and administered. … Although this provision does not expressly mention the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 36 it clearly encompasses ERISA-qualified benefit plans.

Jean E. Welch v. State Department of Highways and Public Transportation and the State of Texas, Drott Manufacturing Company and J.I. Case Co.

739 F.2d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 1984

The body of recent Supreme Court decisions does not overrule these clearly applicable precedents, either explicitly or implicitly. … The distinction between substantive immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court is most clearly drawn in Justice Marshall’s concurring opinion in Employees v. Missouri Pub.

Houston v. TX Dept of Agri

17 F.4th 576 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 5, 2021

All facts and evidence are 5 The defendants moved to dismiss Houston’s Title VII and ADA claims as time- barred and to dismiss the FMLA claims as barred on sovereign immunity grounds, which … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, “a plaintiff must prove that (1) she is an ‘individual with a disability’; (2) who is ‘otherwise qualified’; (3) who worked for a ‘program

Nathan Tony Jones v. United States

387 F.2d 909 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 17, 1968

Most important the registrant bears the burden of clearly establishing a right to the exemption. * * * The Board has no affirmative duty to ascertain whether or not the registrant qualifies for the exemption. * * * >» “ * … The test which the District Court had jurisdiction to apply is clearly stated in Wood v.