Case law

Samuel CARROLL, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

708 F.2d 183 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 6, 1983

The test alone would neither qualify nor disqualify an individual from being hired or promoted. 4 . … This finding is reasonably supported by the evidence and is not clearly erroneous.

Castaneda v. Pickard

648 F.2d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 1981

Clearly, Raymondville is not culpable of such a failure. … On this record, we think a finding to the contrary would be clearly erroneous.

Homan & Crimen, Inc. v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant

626 F.2d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 1, 1980

It is not so clearly controlling as to require the Secretary to apply it in this case. … Income from funded depreciation or provider’s qualified pension fund is not used to reduce interest expense.

Autobahn Imports, L.P. v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., L.L.C.

896 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 13, 2018

While noting that neither the Manual nor the Rules define “an approved leasing company,” she still found that “[s]ales to leasing companies are qualified sales under Business Builder according to the Program documents.” … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 207 (2001) (explaining that courts can decide whether an underlying constitutional violation took place even if qualified immunity bars the suit and renders the antecedent constitutional judgment unnecessary

Blue Bell Bio-Medical v. Cin-Bad, Inc.

864 F.2d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 10, 1989

Alternatively, the court concluded that even if Blue Bell’s cart qualified for protection, Blue Bell had failed to establish a likelihood of confusion between the two products. … Blue Bell also contends that the evidence of CBi’s intent to copy establishes that the court's factual finding of no likelihood of confusion is clearly erroneous. This issue is addressed Section III.B. of the opinion. .

Bennett William WAGGONER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee

987 F.2d 1160 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 1993

ADEA Claim To establish an ADEA claim, a plaintiff must initially create a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: (1) he was within the protected class; (2) he was qualified for the job in question; and (3) employees … However, if the factfinder determines that [the discharged employee] was clearly better qualified than the employees who were retained, it is entitled to conclude that the [employer’s] articulated reasons are pretexts. 20

National Labor Relations Board v. Longhorn Transfer Service, Inc.

346 F.2d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 15, 1965

The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that McCardell was discharged for his union activity. … Hahn’s anti-union animus is clearly established, as is the fact that he knew of McCardell’s support for the union. There had been previous threats that someone would be discharged and McCardell was.

City of Miami v. Sutton

181 F.2d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 1950

The law applicable to the situation here is clearly stated in Beal v. Missouri Pacific R. … No citizen or member of the community is immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts.

Peggy WOODHOUSE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAGNOLIA HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant

92 F.3d 248 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 1996

See Thornbrough, 760 F.2d at 642 (plaintiff can show discrimination in a RIF case by establishing, inter alia, that she was qualified to assume another position at the time of discharge). … indicated that she was qualified to maintain a variety of jobs with the defendant, most notable as a registered nurse.

Smith v. Gross

2 F.2d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 26, 1924

The appellants take the position that the defense sot up, if established, shows a want of probable cause, for the reason that, under section 1014 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. … Clearly in these cases the court not only has jurisdiction to try and decide the question raised, but it is its imperative duty to do so.

Talib v. Gilley

138 F.3d 211 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 1998

Brennen, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1981 (1994) (establishing deliberate indifference standard). … Finally, even if the policy were not clearly established, such a requirment is unnecessary in this case.

Group Life and Health Insurance Company v. The United States of America

660 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 1981

We find that the trial court was clearly erroneous in its determination that Group Life qualified for taxation as a life insurance company and was entitled to a refund of $614,270.89, and we reverse the judgment of the court … The government raises two issues on appeal; first, whether the “disability-disabled lives” reserve established by Group Life does, in fact, qualify as a life insurance reserve under the Code, and second, whether, if Group

Turner v. Camp

123 F.2d 840 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 15, 1941

That a federal officer may have erred in making an unlawful search does not give the truck immunity if its guilt is otherwise proven. … This clearly is a case where a search warrant was not required. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 , 39 A.L.R. 790 .

United States v. Davidson

139 F.2d 908 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 20, 1943

Certain it is that taxation is the rule and immunity the exception, and that immunity must be positively and clearly shown. … I do not think, for the reasons stated in the opinion, that an immunity is positively and clearly shown on Jan. 1, 1937, by the confused and uncertain evidence offered.

Farris v. Interstate Circuit, Inc.

116 F.2d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 3, 1941

The admission of the testimony complained of was clearly prejudicial error. … These witnesses were not qualified as experts.

Gilbert Rendon, Cross-Appellant. And Joe Mike Zepeda, Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants v. At & T Technologies, Cross-Appellee

883 F.2d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 1989

Yost’s conclusion and this finding is not clearly erroneous. Aggregation is not impermissible as a matter of law. … Thus, we cannot say that the district court’s acceptance of pooled data was clearly erroneous. E.

The John G. And Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Garry Mauro, Commissioner of the General Land Office

21 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 1994

For relief, the Foundation clearly requested that the district court determine and declare that the Foundation was the owner of the disputed land. … (“Will establishes that the State and the arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit [under § 1983] in either federal or state court.”).

24 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1693, 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,517 Paris Kincade v. General Tire and Rubber Co., and William F. Halliburton

635 F.2d 501 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 30, 1981

Each of the six named plaintiffs qualified for participation in the distribution of the fund; their awards ranged from $263.78 to $1,167.62. … However, while this procedure is not favored, it clearly does not constitute reversible error. Midland Telecasting Co. v.

American Radio Association v. Mobile Steamship Association, Inc.

483 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 22, 1973

The merits are tested by asking whether the moving party has established a probable right to relief. 7 Moore’s Federal Practice [¶] 65.04 (1972). … In regard to the merits we conclude only that appellants’ position is not so clearly correct that it would be an abuse of discretion for the trial court to decide they had not proved a probable right to relief.

King v. Katzenbach

360 F.2d 304 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 1966

Deportability on the charge stated in the Order to Show Cause is established. … The reports of both houses of Congress specifically note that only the parents of adult United States citizens will be permitted to enter without numerical limitation. 3 Petitioner clearly does not qualify as an “immediate