Case law

Cinel v. Connick

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 1996

Standard for Pleading a § 1983 Case The district court applied this Circuit's heightened pleading requirement for § 1983 cases established in Elliott v. … The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiff alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and thus, the officers were not entitled to a qualified immunity.

Lindsey Hoyt v. Lane Construction Corporati

927 F.3d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2019

Improper joinder "can be established by demonstrating," among other things, the "inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court." … The district court first held Lane is statutorily immune from the Hoyts' damages claims.

Dial v. NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan

174 F.3d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 7, 1999

The REA provides procedures that a plan administrator must follow to determine if a state-court domestic relations order is “qualified.” … With the establishment of the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle Plan and the Disability Plan in 1993, it became apparent that this belief was mistaken. Ms.

Stack v. Gamill

796 F.2d 65 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 1986

This court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in denying the Gammill plaintiffs permission to intervene. … American Medical Assn., 635 F.2d 1295, 1301 (7th Cir.1980), where Judge Wisdom stated “the burden must be on the parties opposing modification to establish that particular discovery materials in Wilk would be immune *68 from

William Wiley v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner

625 F.3d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 27, 2010

established federal law. … Because the Tennessee courts unreasonably applied federal law clearly established by Ford, this Court does not afford AEDPA deference to their dismissal of Thompson’s petition.”).

Ruth E. Hughes, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Sherman Hughes, Sr., Deceased v. The Tobacco Institute, Inc. Philip Morris, Inc. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. B.A.T. Industries Plc Lorillard Tobacco Co. The American Tobacco Company Liggett Group, Inc. United States Tobacco Company the Council for Tobacco Research Usa, Inc., Carlis Cole, Carlis Cole Charles Cole Louis Ardoin Charles Banks Ruth Davis Donald French Lois French Linda Goodwin Daniel Hughes Barbara Orr Darrell Orr, Sr. Dale Sonnier Agnes Vondy, Individually & as Representative of the Estate of Luanne Davis, Deceased Kaffie Williams, Individually & as Representative of the Estate of Jules Williams, Sr., Deceased Frank O'Pry Joseph Wray, the Son of Thomas H. Wray, Deceased, & Paula Wray Ewing, of the Estate of Thomas H. Wray, Deceased Patricia Gibson, Individually & as Representative of the Estate of Danny Gibson, Deceased & as Next Friend of Paul Gibson, Patrick Gibson, Bryan Gibson, Gayla Gibson & Gabrielle Gibson, Minors, Steven Faircloth, Intervenor v. The Tobacco Institute, Inc. Philip Morris, Incorporated Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company B.A.T. Industries Plc Lorillard Tobacco Company the American Tobacco Company Liggett Group, Inc. United States Tobacco Company the Council for Tobacco Research Usa, Inc.

278 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

To establish an open court's violations, the plaintiff must establish that (1) he or she has a well-established, cognizable common law cause of action that is being abrogated or restricted, and (2) that restriction of the … The district court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish the first prong, i.e. that they had a well-established, cognizable common-law claim that § 82.004 abrogated or restricted. We agree.

Texas Catastrophe Property Insurance Association v. Dan Morales, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas

975 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 30, 1992

The Act also provides CATPOOL immunity from liability in some circumstances. Basically, CATPOOL enjoys immunity for property inspections and statements made at administrative hearings. … Of course, the Legislature may waive sovereign immunity whenever it chooses. And the Texas Legislature did just that in September, 1991, relative to one aspect of CATPOOL’s sovereign immunity.

Fine v. American Solar King Corp.

919 F.2d 290 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 4, 1990

Rather, Main Hurdman argues that such knowledge did not establish scienter because, in order to establish scienter, it must have known that the omitted fact created a “danger of misleading buyers” or the danger must have … The district court acknowledged that “[w]hile more than one Plaintiff states a conclusion that he relied on the report, the whole of each Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony clearly indicates the contrary.”

Local 1255, International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

456 F.2d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 15, 1972

On March 17, 1970 the Union struck Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company and established a picket line at the Company’s Amarillo, Texas plant. Picketing continued from March 17 through April 3, 1970. … We believe the Union’s right to expel a member, or deny readmission to an ex-member, for not paying a fine is clearly protected by the proviso to § 8(b) (1) (A).

United States v. McKinney

53 F.3d 664 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 1995

After exclusions of those who were not qualified, those who were exempt, and those who did not return the questionnaire2, there were about 2,700 names in the qualified jury 2 There … The district court's findings are not clearly erroneous.

Courtland Tatum v. Sheriffs Dept Natchitoches, et

603 F. App'x 336 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 2015

Finally, the court properly granted the detectives’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, officers maintain immunity if probable cause arguably existed for an arrest. Brown v. Lyford, 243 F.3d 185, 190 (5th Cir. 2001).

Lillie Slaughter-Cooper, M.D. v. Kelsey Seybold Medical Group P.A.

379 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2004

"Although waiver is ordinarily a question of fact, when the facts and circumstances are admitted or clearly established, the question becomes one of law." Motor Vehicle Bd. of the Texas Dept. of Transp. v. … After a qualifying absence, the employer must restore the employee to the same position or a position comparable to that held by the employee before the leave. See id.

United States v. Investment Enterprises, Inc.

10 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 1993

As our earlier discussion demonstrated, the guidelines clearly and specifically provide for sentencing to include a §1467 forfeiture. … No such qualifying language appears in the language of the statutory provision.

Mary Fishe Bell v. J. W. Southwell

376 F.2d 659 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 1967

Bell, a qualified elector and candidate, and two other named Negro qualified voters, against the defendants Southwell and Horne, the Ordinary, invoked the Civil Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1971 , 1981, 1983, 1985, 28 U.S.C.A … Clearly, the Federal Constitution and the Federal Courts are not so helpless or unresourceful as to condemn in words only to let go by default in fact such axi open breach of constitutional demands.

Edwards v. Guardian Life Ins

140 F.4th 729 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 2025

Instead, to decide whether a policy qualifies as an employee benefit plan, “we ask whether a plan: (1) exists; (2) falls within the safe-harbor provision established by the Department of Labor; and (3) satisfies the primary … elements” of such a plan: “establishment or maintenance by an employer intending to benefit employees.”

Deas v. River West, L.P.

152 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 3, 1998

Dixon, would have substantially limited one or more of Deas’ major life activities.10 Considered in the light most favorable to Deas, the summary judgment record clearly contains sufficient evidence to establish … Dixon clearly did not regard Deas as completely "unable" to see, speak, and hear. Nor does the evidence support the conclusion that Dr.

Mark Tennyson v. Harris County Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 2020

The Officers appeal, arguing they are entitled to qualified immunity. We reverse. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Linbrugger v. … Government officials “are entitled to qualified immunity . . . unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Regionald Seastrunk v. Gerald Burns

772 F.2d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 30, 1985

The candidate qualifying period was set for January 24-28, 1983. … The district court’s conclusion that no second “safe” black district could be drawn was, therefore, not clearly erroneous, and must stand.

Florence Wattles Hartz, Margaret Elwyn Roth and Globe Indemnity Company v. United States

387 F.2d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 11, 1968

This concept is clearly defined in United States v. Miller, 303 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1962) cert. denied 371 U.S. 955 , 83 S.Ct. 507 , 9 L.Ed.2d 502 . … Clearly, the controller was the one better qualified by training, experience and vantage position to estimate time and distance and it was his duty to direct and guide the Bonanza in a manner consistent with its safety and

Barnes v. Pierce

338 F. App'x 373 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 2009

Therefore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this First Amendment claim. See Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 410-11 (5th Cir. 2007). … The district court was within its discretion to deny discovery given that the defendants raised a qualified immunity defense. 4  No. 08-40620 See