Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.14s
638 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 13, 1981
The district court found that Lowery and Rhoades failed to carry their initial burden because the evidence did not establish that they were qualified for the job. … On this record, we cannot say that the district court’s conclusion — that appellants were not qualified for the position — was clearly erroneous. B.
Cited 34 timesPublished657 F.3d 215 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 2011
a limitations period for a federal cause of action, the “general rule” is that we borrow the most analogous period from state law. 109 We decline to adopt a state limitations period only when another federal statute “clearly … Servs., Inc., 549 U.S. 1163 , 1163, 127 S.Ct. 1121 , 166 L.Ed.2d 888 (2007) (vacating and remanding to court of appeal "to consider the views of the United States” as to whether Title II validly abrogated state sovereign immunity
Cited 279 timesPublished571 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.
Questioned by Corder v. Kirksey, 625 F.2d 520 (1980)Cited 104 timesPublishedUnited States v. Proby L. Griffin
555 F.2d 1323 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 6, 1977
See also, Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities 285 (2d ed. 1974). In U.S. v. Ellis, 547 F.2d 863 (CA 5,1977), this court was presented with a somewhat analogous situation. … To establish probable cause, the government relied primarily on the testimony of Roy Weise, Director of the Texas Pharmacy Services Program.
Cited 24 timesPublished438 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 27, 2006
That cannot be the law; § 541 clearly states that a bankruptcy estate is established at “[t]he commencement of [the] case.” … To the contrary, § 541 clearly states that a bankruptcy estate is established at “[t]he commencement of [the] case.”
Cited 40 timesPublishedMichael Nall v. BNSF Railway Company
912 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 27, 2018
Under the vision established by Congress, fact issues are tried by juries. See Fed. R. Civ. … Robinson, 902 F.3d 483 , 498 (5th Cir.2018) (Willett, J., concurring) (describing the "kudzu-like creep" of qualified immunity law). More than 57,000 court opinions have cited it.
Cited 2 timesPublished862 F.2d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 9, 1989
265 (1986), the Supreme Court stated: [T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish … Finally, we decline to address the issues of qualified and absolute immunity because we find other adequate grounds on which to affirm the district court. III.
Cited 59 timesPublishedDavis 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.
Cited 1 timesPublished450 F. App'x 341 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 25, 2011
There are two issues presented for our review.1 The first is whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under Section 1983 if a reasonable official would not know that his conduct violated clearly 1 The plaintiffs failed to brief arguments related
Cited 1 timesUnpublished127 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 27, 1997
Appellants also argue that the prosecution failed to disclose “informal immunity” agreements entered into with several witnesses, including Derrick and Roy Patterson. In fact, there were no such immunity agreements. … Conversion of $90,000 to Cocaine Quantity We apply the clearly erroneous standard of review to the district court’s factual determination regarding the quantity of drugs used to establish the base offense level.
Cited 119 timesPublished578 F.3d 293 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2009
This standard of causation must be established by substantial evidence. … that the violation was not due to an established municipal policy.
Reversed by Connick v. Thompson, 179 L. Ed. 2d 417 (2011)Cited 23 timesPublishedLa Union del Pueblo v. Bettencourt
93 F.4th 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 2024
One response to a separate motion in a massive case does not constitute “briefing” nor establish active participation for purposes of this appeal, and the majority fails to cite any authority to establish that it does … These cases clearly establish that this is not the legislators only means of review.
Cited 9 timesPublished174 F.3d 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 23, 1999
The assertion of state sovereign immunity remains intact, however, only if the officers’ qualified immunity defense succeeds. See City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex. 1993). … Qualified immunity will apply unless the Plaintiffs had a clearly established constitutional right to be free from the arrests and the officers’ conduct was not objectively reasonable in light of the facts as they appeared
Cited 0 timesUnpublished502 F.2d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 14, 1974
The “or” in § 116 is clearly disjunctive. Therefore,' contrary to the position of *1246 the defendants, “requirements” must include more than emission standards or limitations. … Sovereign Immunity Distinct from the Supremacy Clause issue, the Army defendants argue that as against them this action is barred by the sovereign immunity of the United States from suit.
Cited 1 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 11, 1995
Indeed, the Court observed in James that "[i]t is difficult to imagine broader language", 478 U.S. at 604, and concluded that "Congress clearly sought to ensure beyond doubt that sovereign immunity would protect … First, the note is only in reference to the Court's statement in the text that "the waters [in issue] clearly fall within the ambit of the statute"; that statement did not concern when immunity would not bar liability
Cited 0 timesPublishedMeister v. Texas Adjustant General Department
233 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 28, 2000
This claim fails because Meister has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. … One of the elements of a prima facie case that a plaintiff must establish is that he or she was qualified for the position sought. Haynes v. Pennzoil Co., 207 F.3d 296, 300-01 (5th Cir. 2000).
Cited 27 timesPublishedUnited States v. George Woodrow Flanagan
80 F.3d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 29, 1996
The court explained that it had found that Flanagan was a leader “to establish a disparity in culpability between Kiker and Flanagan, but [it] didn’t intend to establish a 500 percent disparity in culpability.” … The Government presents no argument that such finding was clearly erroneous.
Cited 132 timesPublishedUnited States v. Moreno-Florean
542 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2008
Under plain-error review, “a defendant must establish error that is plain and affects substantial rights.” Id. … (“Nava-Salgado’s sentence of eight years clearly satisfied the five-year requirement.”).
Cited 65 timesPublished627 F.3d 115 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 2011
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that they are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. … That view is unremarkable, as the statute clearly prohibits use of the Fund for abortion claims that are brought under Section 9:2800.12.
Cited 0 timesPublishedPlanned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee
837 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 14, 2016
This argument ignores the well-established principle that a threatened injury may be sufficient to establish standing. 11 As LDHH itself asserts, “[tjhreat-ened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact … ” provider, and PPGC is not a qualified provider.
Cited 7 timesPublished
Ask Donna