Case law

United States v. Simmonds

262 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 24, 2001

Simmonds has failed to show that the district court’s factual finding was clearly erroneous. See Canada, 110 F.3d at 262-63. … Simmonds has not shown why this factual finding is clearly erroneous.

Joseph Gerhart v. Rankin County, Mississipp

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 26, 2018

Qualified Immunity To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show first that “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right” and second that “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … immunity was inappropriate in part because “the law prohibiting the officers’ conduct was clearly established at the time of the raid.”

William B. Wilson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

560 F.2d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 11, 1977

Given the proper standards, however, the question whether an individual meets them and qualifies as a beneficial shareholder is one of fact. … whether that court’s conclusion that Ira was not the beneficial owner of any stock is clearly erroneous.

Spotts v. United States

613 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 19, 2010

THE FTCA CLAIMS The FTCA waives sovereign immunity and permits suit against the United States for claims sounding in state tort law for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (waiving sovereign immunity to make the Government … But the plaintiffs do not cite a dictionary definition or otherwise explain how mold qualifies as a “vermin” or “pest.”

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.

United States v. Davis C. McCord

664 F.2d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 14, 1981

With this background, the district judge was especially qualified to weigh and evaluate the conflicts in the evidence. … Further, since the government did not agree at any time that McCord would receive a probated sentence in exchange for his cooperation McCord has failed to establish that any plea bargain as to his sentence was unkept.

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.

Tulia Feedlot, Inc. v. United States

513 F.2d 800 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 2, 1975

The taxpayer must not only prove that the Commissioner was wrong, but he also has the burden of establishing the facts from which an exact determination of the proper deduction may be made. Lenox Clothes Shops v. … The scope of our review is limited here by the “clearly erroneous” principle of F.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

National Post Office v. United States Postal Service

647 F.2d 605 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 1981

The record does not answer two questions essential for determining if Saulsbury is entitled to a remedy: (1) Could he have established a temporary disability in summer 1978 had Postal Service doctors examined him then? … They clearly lie within the unique competence of the arbitrator, involving interpretation of Article XIII of the union contract and the arbitrator's 1978 award. 14 The union argues that we should dismiss this appeal because

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.

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)

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.

Walker v. Scott

176 F.3d 479 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 1999

The eleventh amendment bars federal court suits against states by private citizens except where a state has waived its immunity, or where Congress, in implementing its legislation clearly has abrogated the states’ immunity … .2 Texas has not waived its immunity from suit in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, 3 nor has Congress abrogated immunity of the states in enacting this legislation.4 Further, because claims against state employees in their official

Barrow Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

294 F.2d 79 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 24, 1961

Consequently, petitioner had no permanent debt structure and paid for purchased material within 10 days to qualify for discounts. … . § 534 , to establish that the earnings and profits have been permitted to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of the business.

Florida, Department of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc.

621 F.2d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 1980

The report established that Florida had never owned an interest in any of the lands involved in the case at bar. … Neither the eleventh amendment nor sovereign immunity prohibited such action.

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.

Alvy Thomas McQueen Individually and D/B/A Livingston Oil v. Bob Bullock, Comptroller, in His Official Capacity, Alvy T. McQueen v. United States of America and Comptroller of Public Accounts, State of Texas

907 F.2d 1544 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 9, 1990

The doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes our exercise of jurisdiction over McQueen II. … The facial validity of the Texas remedies is thus well established. However, McQueen also challenges these remedies as they are applied to him.

Yoon v. Commissioner

135 F.3d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 1998

We cannot and will not condone such an end-run around the government’s clearly established burden of proof. … Furthermore, we reject the alternative argument that, if § 274(d)’s substantiation requirements do apply, the Yoons qualify for an exception to those requirements.

Mozaina Kobaisy v. University of Mississippi, et a

624 F. App'x 195 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 1, 2015

The court also found the individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity for acting in their individual capacities, dismissed the Title VII claim for national origin discrimination, and dismissed the state law conspiracy … Section 1983 claims against state officials for prospective injunctive relief under § 1983, such as Kobaisy’s request for reinstatement, are not barred by sovereign immunity. Nelson v.

James Spence v. Wallace Nelson

533 F. App'x 368 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 14, 2013

Finally, “because qualified immunity turns only upon the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s acts, a particular defendant’s subjective state of mind has no bearing on whether that defendant is entitled to qualified … immunity.”