Case law

United States v. James Thurmond Boatwright and Benjamin Frank Boatwright, No. 31119 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of N.Y., 431 F.2d 409, Part I (5th Cir. 1970)

446 F.2d 913 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 1971

subsequent interstate transportation. the closest evidence to this point is that Frank told Sheffield that the car belonged to James and that he (James) wanted to drive it down to Pensacola, a statement which Frank later qualified … The district judge concluded this testimony as well as the testimony of others that the common law marriage relationship had not been established.

United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Development

722 F.3d 677 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 26, 2013

There is no basis under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) for the Rubins to establish their interest in the forfeited property. ii. … The Rubins argue that, even if HLF’s assets do not qualify as blocked, they should still prevail because the provisions of the TRIA trump the criminal forfeiture provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 853.

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

Rosado v. Deters

5 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 18, 1993

They argue, however, that the court erred in concluding that Katsaris was not qualified to testify in this area. We disagree. … Katsaris himself admitted that he could not independently establish the necessary physical and mathematical bases for his opinion.

Johnson v. Uncle Ben's, Inc.

657 F.2d 750 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 30, 1981

To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection. … The principles governing disparate impact cases have been clearly established *754 by the Supreme Court and by the opinions of this circuit.

Jack Neal, District Attorney, 8th Judicial District v. Honorable Kearney Brim, Judge, 8th Judicial District

506 F.2d 6 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 9, 1975

In light of the ample evidence of animosity that was adduced at trial, we hold that the trial court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. … Whatever the final merit of Judge Brim's argument, we need say only that it is not helpful for purposes of establishing whether the federal courts have jurisdiction.

Jackie Outley v. Luke & Associates, Inc.

840 F.3d 212 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 2016

To establish a prima facie case, Outley must provide evidence “that she (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for her position; (3) was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) was replaced by someone … Moreover, Luke’s request for her transfer, instead of termin- ation, suggests that she is qualified.

Clarence Jones v. Richard Alfred

353 F. App'x 949 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 30, 2009

Assuming arguendo that RLUIPA provides an action for offi- cial-capacity damages, those claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Id.. … established federal law” to get around qualified immunity.

United States v. Taylor

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 18, 2002

(finding that the district court clearly erred in relying on the drug quantity in a PSR because it lacked any indicia of reliability); Cf. … This Court specifically found that the government had failed to establish that the evidence had any indicia of reliability, stating: The PSR does not refer to the source of the "facts" it contains

Niles B. Wanger and Shirley Wanger v. Ray Bonner, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Dekalb County, Robert W. McCullough Etc.

621 F.2d 675 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 1980

In response Deputies Bell and McCullough asserted a qualified immunity defense, arguing that they had acted in good faith on the basis of their reasonable belief that Jimmy Leon Payne could be found at 306 Candler Street … An individual’s privacy interests are nowhere more clearly defined or rigorously protected by the courts than in the home — the core of fourth amendment rights. Payton v. New York, - U.S. at -, 100 S.Ct. at 1381-82 .

United States v. Chester Albert Clarke, Sr.

451 F.2d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 7, 1971

However, in an effort to link appellant with the burglary of the Belle State Bank and to establish scienter in the aiding and abetting charge, testimony concerning the R. J. … The trial court’s finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous. The case of Elkins v.

United States v. Fred Campagnuolo, John Campagnuolo, and Michael Gougules

556 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 4, 1977

The prosecutor called Aurillio as a witness in an attempt to establish a violation of section 1955. … The facts in both Brodson and Marion are clearly distinguishable from those involved in this appeal.

10 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1148, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,223 Jack A. Gamble v. Birmingham Southern Railroad Company

514 F.2d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 1975

Congress has clearly authorized back pay awards under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(g). … But we have clearly held that conciliation efforts by the EEOC are not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a Title VII suit.

18 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1220, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8709

583 F.2d 132 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 1978

established by the Kaiser-Union collective bargaining agreement, See 575 F.2d at 1387-89, might have been somewhat more explicit in this regard. … Rather, it is a condition upon Transfer wholly extraneous to the prevailing seniority system, and, as such, is Not immunized by § 703(h) and Teamsters. Cf.

S-1 v. Turlington

635 F.2d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 26, 1981

The children in this suit are clearly handicapped within the meaning óf both section 504 and the EHA. … The record clearly belies the school officials’ contention.

Wirtz v. Keystone Readers Service, Inc.

418 F.2d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 14, 1969

If this office does not qualify as a retail establishment, then appellant maintains no retail establishment at all and cannot qualify for the § 13(a) (2) exemption. 22 In determining whether appellant's office in North Miami … Beach can qualify as an exempt retail establishment, we begin by noting that central accounting offices in retail chain store operations have been consistently denied the retail establishment exemption.

United States v. Joseph Daniel Hawkins

566 F.2d 1006 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 30, 1978

Qualified Jury Wheel. … In a footnote, we explained that since the appellant in that case alleged the exclusion of Latin Americans, he would have to “establish by appropriate proof that Latin Americans are clearly a cognizable group in the Miami

Thompson Olu Adebisi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

952 F.2d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 1992

It is true, of course, that the BIA extends the qualifying range of persecution fear to include acts by groups “the government is unable or unwilling to control.” … We also note that letters from Adebisi’s friend, Debo Ologundude, and his brother, Nuji Adebi-si, while not clearly showing a pattern of persecution, can be read as supporting that view.

David Johnston, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Richard J. Johnston Gloria Johnston v. United States

85 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 13, 1996

Clearly, the Johnstons’ wrongful death claim was not premature. … To have defined all the tort rules under which liability could be established would have been an almost impossible undertaking. Quinton, 304 F.2d at 237 .

Tina Alexander v. Ameripro Funding, Incorpo

848 F.3d 698 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 2017

All sought to qualify for a loan to purchase a home. … See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691(a), 1691a(b), 1691a(e), 1691e(a). 7 The Supreme Court has clearly explained the standard for evaluating whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief: 7 Accord Estate of Davis