Case law

Thomas Holt v. State of Louisiana

493 F. App'x 608 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 15, 2012

clearly established law’; and second, the decision that a ‘genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the defendant(s) did, in fact, engage in such conduct.’” … Accordingly, the order of the district court holding that Holt had established a substantive due process violation is affirmed, and the appeal of the of the court’s rulings on qualified immunity is dismissed for lack of appellate

Gerardo Jesus Herrera v. Sam D. Millsap, Jr., Dennis H. Carlson, Gerardo Jesus Herrera v. Dennis H. Carlson

862 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.

Brown v. Forest Oil Corp.

29 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 1994

La. 1991). 5 Brown stated in an affidavit that POI told him that it was a qualified self-insurer when he signed the Agreement. … Notably, Brown does not testify that POI told him that it was a qualified self-insurer under the LHWCA.

Walter Fuller Aircraft Sales, Inc. v. Republic of Philippines

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 24, 1992

"[T]he level of state control required to establish an "alter ego' relationship is more extensive than that required to establish FSIA "agency.' " Id.; see also Foremost–McKesson, Inc. v. … As Fuller argues, the Deed of Sale clearly contemplates that litigation could occur anywhere.

Smith v. Moody

862 F.2d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

They argue that even if Texas law does immunize a debtor’s homestead, Moody lost his homestead under Texas law by either alienation or abandonment. … Yamin is clearly distinguishable.

United States v. Edward John Johnston, Iii, Darrell Wayne Adams, Eric Darnell Lowery, Larry J. Hill, and Gonzalo J. Alvarado

127 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.

La 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.

State v. Seeber

502 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.

Meister 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).

United 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.”).

Boudreau v. United States

Court 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

George Richardson v. Texas Secretary of Sta

978 F.3d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 2020

The Secretary took several actions over recent months to facilitate the ability of qualifying voters to vote by mail. … Analyzing the question whether sovereign immunity bars positive injunctions against officers, the D.C.

United 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.

67 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 659, 66 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,483 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cross-Appellee v. Louisiana Office of Community Services, Regina C. Fisher, Plaintiff-Movant-Appellant

47 F.3d 1438 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 1995

C. 22 The EEOC argues first that it presented evidence that Fisher was clearly better qualified than the selectees. … A fact finder can infer pretext if it finds that the employee was "clearly better qualified" (as opposed to merely better or as qualified) than the employees who are selected. See, e.g., Odom v.

Fred Moore v. City of Desoto

450 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

Planned 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.

Nationalist Movement v. Commissioner

37 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 4, 1994

Exempt Purpose An organization must be operated exclusively for an exempt purpose to qualify for exemption under § 501(c)(3). … After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the Tax Court's holding was not clearly erroneous.

Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., and Burzynski Research Institute Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

967 F.2d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 1992

Burzynski attest to Burzynski’s miracle cure, and the narrator makes Burzynski appear as a genius excoriated by the medical establishment and the F.D.A. … We therefore think that it would be unjust to afford AEtna and Hinshaw immunity from suit based on the mass mailing. Truth, of course, will be a defense upon remand. Dr.

Land v. City of Odessa TX

276 F. App'x 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 2008

right and (2) whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident. … The second question we may address is whether defendants’ conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.

Mark Trucks, Inc. v. Arrow Aluminum Castings Company

510 F.2d 1029 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 9, 1975

Scott stopped short of holding, however, that a plaintiff, having established jurisdiction for his cause of action under § (b), is restricted to tort theories of recovery; rather, that is precisely what the district judge … Had Mack brought in Arrow as a third. party defendant, Penne/s factual setting would have been duplicated; in personam jurisdiction over Arrow would therefore clearly have existed as to Mack’s contract claims.