Case law

Coleman v. New Orleans & Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots' Ass'n

437 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 24, 2006

The receipts, minus general overhead expenses, are remitted monthly to member pilots in accordance with an established formula based on the number of days each individual was available for piloting. … Clearly not.

Juarez v. Short

84 F. App'x 420 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 29, 2003

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Juarez argues that Prison Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity, and that because the district court dismissed his suit on these grounds, we should reverse the decision. … Because the defense of qualified immunity had no bearing on the district court’s decision, we decline to consider it here. IV.

Pierce v. Thaler

604 F.3d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 2010

Therefore, the “clearly established law” described in Abdul-Kabir and Brewer controls this case. … The state habeas trial court made a clearly erroneous finding of fact that one of Pierce’s experts, Dr. Garnett, was not qualified to diagnose mental retardation.

United States v. Age

136 F.4th 193 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2025

2,000 qualified jurors are on the wheel at any given time. … As jury panels and pools are created over time, names are withdrawn from the qualified wheel and the qualified wheel is replenished continually.

Doran v. Compton

645 F.2d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 1981

As discussed above, the well-established rule of construction in Texas is that “a limitations statute will be presumed to operate prospectively unless its terms clearly show a legislative intent that it is to be retroactive … Although the quoted language clearly establishes that section 4 of article 5.82 supersedes the tolling provisions of article 5535 for causes of action that accrue during the effective life of section 4, it provides no guidance

Arthur J. Goldberg, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Arnold Brothers Cotton Gin Co., Inc.

297 F.2d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 2, 1962

Arnold except for two qualifying shares owned by others, one of whom is L. H. Arnold, his father, the corporation president. Arnold Cotton Company is a partnership, owned by the father and son. … We are not concerned with the clearly erroneous rule, F.R.Civ. P. 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A., but with a misconception of the legal standard to be followed as to proof. Mitchell v.

26 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1381, 27 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,126 James L. Williams, Jr., L. C. Allen, Roy B. Davison, Jacob C. Johnson, William W. Landers, William N. Bailey, Ralph Dodd, William J. Bales, Cross-Appellees. v. General Motors Corporation, Cross-Appellant

656 F.2d 120 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 14, 1981

Marshall, though, clearly acknowledged that "McDonnell Douglas (did) not establish an immutable definition of a prima facie case," 554 F.2d at 735. … The relevant House report clearly declared "(i)t is, of course, not the purpose of this legislation to require the employment, regardless of age, of one not otherwise qualified."

Randy Jenkins v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept

784 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 20, 2015

Under the modified McDonnell Douglas approach, Jenkins must first establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination by showing that “(1) he belongs to a protected group; (2) he was qualified for the position sought; ( … Thus, while Jenkins clearly coveted the role of District Chief of Inspections, his subjective preference is not enough to make his non-selection materially adverse.

Varnado v. Flemming

295 F.2d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 13, 1961

The testimony of the doctors, other than the one stating outright that he thought appellant was one hundred per cent incapacitated, establishes that appellant was disabled from performing any work involving standing, sitting … Based upon the original evidence, the record clearly shows that, under the medical evidence, claimant was disabled from any work involving standing, sitting, walking or lifting, and that the lower court concluded that the

Earl K. Phillips and Carrie Phillips v. The Western Company of North America

953 F.2d 923 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 1992

As noted above, in most cases the employer that funds a disability benefit program such as workers’ compensation cannot also be the tortfeasor because of statutory immunities. … Although it is clear that the legal tests for establishing each are different, both causes of action may arise out of a common nucleus of facts. Simeon v. T.

United States v. McCord

33 F.3d 1434 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 26, 1994

As discussed supra, there is ample evidence to support this finding; it is not clearly erroneous. 2. … Our standard of review "is more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard". United States v. Burian, 19 F.3d 188, 192 (5th Cir. 1994).

No. 99-11294

230 F.3d 788 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 20, 2000

The government has not established the applicability of any common law alter ego theory. … Section 106 states as follows: "(a) Notwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a governmental unit to the extent set forth in this section with respect to the following: (1)

prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,261 Edward A. Lewis v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc., Louis Angelle v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc., Joseph Ferrara v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc., Joseph Caronia, Etc. v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc., Christopher Bordenave, Jr., Etc. v. Intermedics Intraocular, Inc.

56 F.3d 703 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 24, 1995

The MDA established three categories of medical devices, each with different pre-marketing requirements, based upon the degree of risk to the public health and safety. … The Louisiana Uniform Consent Law, La.R.S. 40:1299.40 clearly does not apply to manufacturers.

Thomas A. McCrary v. David B. Poythress, Secretary of the State of Georgia and Chairman State Election Board

638 F.2d 1308 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 1981

Unlike Ohio, Georgia does not fix an unreasonably early filing deadline for candidates not endorsed by established parties. … In referring to the one-percent requirement the Court clearly indicated that more than that provision was involved: “The District Court balanced this lenient one percent petition requirement against what it thought was a

League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements

986 F.2d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

Id. 10 *752 Congress did not, however, clearly establish a reference point for measuring the success of minority candidates. … Because this finding is supported by the record, we conclude that it is not clearly erroneous. 44 To establish the second and third Gingles factors, the Plaintiffs offered the testimony of Dr.

Jerry R. England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners

263 F.2d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 1959

Medical practice acts enjoy no immunity from constitutional attack. … The meaning is that the holder of such a license is a qualified surgeon and a qualified medical practitioner.

Robert L. Campbell, Cross-Appellee v. W.R. Bowlin, Cross-Appellants

724 F.2d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 6, 1984

At trial, after both parties had presented their evidence, the district court found that the evidence clearly and overwhelmingly established that Campbell had not been discriminated against on the basis of race pursuant to … These cases clearly establish that the question of attorneys’ fees is a collateral issue.

Cervantez v. Whitfield

776 F.2d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 1985

Award actual and punitive damages to plaintiffs according to proof as established at the time of trial; h. … Subsection (d) is mandatory inasmuch as it states that a court “must award fees to qualifying parties under the circumstances of (d)(1)(A)” Alspach v.

Rost v. United States

44 F.4th 294 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2022

The district court correctly found that Enelre qualifies as a foreign trust. … As the district court explained, “Rost’s argument is based on the faulty premise that the IRS established a ‘rule’ that a Stiftung always qualifies as a ‘foreign trust.’” Rost, 2021 WL 5190875, at *8.

Sunbeam Products Inc v. The West Bend Co

123 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 1997

Two Pesos, 505 U.S. at 774 (citations omitted).4 To demonstrate an unlawful trade dress infringement, the plaintiff must first establish that the trade dress qualifies for trade dress protection. … Functional features cannot be protected, and merely descriptive features must have acquired secondary meaning before qualifying for protection.” Sicilia Di R. Biebow & Co. v.