Case law

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Plaintiff-Counter v. A. Buford Wigginton, D/B/A Pickens Pharmacy, Defendant-Counter

964 F.2d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 1, 1992

Constitutional immunity has no application to a private examination arising out of a contractual relationship. … To bring a case within the constitutional immunity, it must appear that compulsion was sought under public process of some kind.

Dreyer v. City of Southlake

291 F. App'x 571 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2008

Schultea held that, if a defendant claims qualified immunity, the district court may require a plaintiff to file a Rule 7 reply to that defense. Id. at 1431. … This is because, once the government official pleads qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut the defense. E.g., Michalik v.

Jimmie McBee v. Jim Hogg County, Texas, Javier Alfonso Hinojosa v. Jim Hogg County, Texas

703 F.2d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 12, 1983

or more qualified than the old. … His reasons for rejecting his previous offer are clearly reflected in the record.

Castillo v. Montelepre, Inc.

999 F.2d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 1993

The Medical Malpractice Act 2 Louisiana has established a statutory scheme for the prosecution of medical malpractice claims against qualified health care providers. … Id. § 40:1299.42(B)(1). 5 In the event a qualified provider settles for its $100,000 policy limits, its liability becomes "admitted and established" for the purposes of any subsequent action by the malpractice victim against

Ove Skou v. United States

526 F.2d 293 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 1976

In our previous opinion, we indicated the nature of the proof required to establish the claim asserted by the plaintiff. … In any event, we conclude that the remand of the case “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion” had the effect of a qualified reversal or modification of the judgment which left effective the part of the

George P. Schultz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Instant Handling, Inc., and Joseph E. King, Individually

418 F.2d 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 20, 1969

This reliance was clearly misplaced. The factual differences between that case and this require a different result. … That case is clearly distinguishable.

United States v. McCandless

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 2000

Although we are not entirely convinced § 1955 has been consistently interpreted to contain the unwritten qualifier of “violation of [a criminal] law of the State,”3 as Appellants suggest, … Miss. 1999) (holding that unlicensed gambling “was clearly criminal and illegal”). 7 But see Weinstein v.

J.B. Smith v. Keith Hightower, Hunter B. Brush, Alvin G. Khoury, Alan L. Manning, and Galloway Calhoun

693 F.2d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 22, 1982

In an action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the plaintiff must establish that he has been denied some right, privilege, or immunity secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States. … It is a well-established rule of this Circuit that the clearly erroneous standard does not apply “when an improper legal standard, or a proper one improperly applied, is utilized by a District Court in arriving at its findings

Georgia Ann Wright Hill, Cross-Appellant v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc., Cross-Appellee

688 F.2d 370 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 7, 1982

The district court held that *376 plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case on this claim. … The court concluded that plaintiff did not prove herself qualified for a commission sales job.

SEC. & Exch. Comm'n v. Arcturus Corp.

912 F.3d 786 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 7, 2019

And when it comes to the investors’ actual experience, the record does not clearly favor the SEC. … The CIM made clear that only qualified investors were eligible.

Waller v. Hoeppner

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 2022

, to the extent that the district court’s order turns on an issue of law.” 4 Qualified immunity insulates public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … When a § 1983 defendant pleads a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff then bears the burden to show that qualified immunity is not available. 6 “On appeal, we ask ‘the purely legal question whether the defendants

Humberto Gomez v. Hughes Unit UTMB Health Provid

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 2019

Case: 18-50848 Document: 00515196297 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2019 No. 18-50848 needs and are not entitled to qualified immunity because they did not take certain actions with … One seeking to overcome an official’s invocation of qualified immunity must show, among other things, that the official has violated a clearly established constitutional right. Harris v. Victoria Indep. Sch.

Citizens Co-Op Gin v. United States

427 F.2d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 1970

Since this is clearly remedial legislation, we see no need to read such a restriction into the statutory scheme. … The attorneys’ fees therefore do not qualify under 26 U.S.C.A. § 6323 (e) (3) for a priority superior to the government’s tax lien.

James Rountree v. Joseph Lopinto, III

976 F.3d 606 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 2, 2020

The owner claimed that the seizure violated his clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. The district court disagreed and dismissed the claim on summary judgment. … Second, the plaintiff must show the asserted right was clearly established at the time of the alleged miscon- duct.

Annie M. Smith, and Her Husband, William Smith v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

431 F.2d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 14, 1970

He was of the opinion that the facts did not establish an “equitable adoption” under Texas law because there was no “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence of a contract to adopt” in the case prior to September 1961, … Since the evidence here clearly verifies appellants’ claims of an adoptive relationship and the existence of an agreement between the appellants and their *1246 daughter that appellants could “adopt” the children, we find

United States v. Henry

680 F.2d 403 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 1982

Although Rule 35 was not discussed, a panel of this circuit clearly treated the sentences in the aggregate. … This Court’s decisions in the sentencing area clearly establish that a sentence does not have the qualities of constitutional finality that attend an acquittal... . “D.

United States v. Walter Teel

691 F.3d 578 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 2012

According to Appellants, by the Skilling Court’s stating that its “construction of § 1346 ‘establish[es] a uniform national standard,” 130 S. … A fair reading of Skilling, however, reveals that the Court was establishing a uniform national standard by construing § 1346 to clearly exclude conduct outside of bribery and kickbacks, such as conflict-of-interest schemes

United States v. Crawford

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 2000

Although we are not entirely convinced § 1955 has been consistently interpreted to contain the unwritten qualifier of “violation of [a criminal] law of the State,”3 as Appellants suggest, … Miss. 1999) (holding that unlicensed gambling “was clearly criminal and illegal”). 7 But see Weinstein v.

United States v. Stewart

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 2000

Although we are not entirely convinced § 1955 has been consistently interpreted to contain the unwritten qualifier of “violation of [a criminal] law of the State,”3 as Appellants suggest, … Miss. 1999) (holding that unlicensed gambling “was clearly criminal and illegal”). 7 But see Weinstein v.

SHOW, Incorporated v. U.S. Dept of Agricult

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 19, 2015

Contender Farms and McGartland argue that the HPA addresses this issue and the statute clearly prohibits the Regulation. … A person is “qualified” if he or she is “[c]ompetent, suited, or having met the requirements for a specific position or task.”