Case law

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Cross-Appellants v. M/v "Leslie Lykes", Etc., Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc., Cross-Appellee

734 F.2d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 14, 1984

The statute makes no other exception from the complete immunity granted.” 205 F.2d at 888 . … The District Court reasoned: The negligent blocking of the access manhole was clearly a proximate cause of not only the fire, but the ensuing damage as well.

Davis v. West Community Hospital

755 F.2d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 21, 1985

Damages 55 Even if the evidence were adequate to establish the element of malice, Dr. Davis has even more clearly failed to establish another essential element of the tort, i.e., that he suffered any actual damages. … THE HOSPITAL'S IMMUNITY FROM PUNITIVE DAMAGES 58 The hospital system is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 . City of Newport v.

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.

United States v. Thomas Harris

821 F.3d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 28, 2016

All federal agencies must set goals for awarding a percentage of their procurement contracts to 8(a)-qualifying firms. 15 U.S.C. § 644(g)(2). … We have applied the government benefits rule to fraudulent schemes clearly involving “grants,” see Nelson, 732 F.3d at 521–23 (EPA grants); United States v.

Delbert Rogers v. Dennis Markgraf

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

However, a qualified immunity defense alters the typical summary judgment burden of proof in that, once the defense is pleaded, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue … as to whether the defendant’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

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).

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.

Wirtz v. C & P Shoe Corp.

336 F.2d 21 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 1964

for the “retail establishment” exemption. 2 Defendant’s reliance upon Montgomery Ward & Co. v. … Aside from the fact that the defendant failed to plead a retail establishment exemption for this employee, 3 and aside from the fact that defendant’s chain-store central office and warehouse cannot qualify as a retail establishment

Shute v. State of Texas

113 F.3d 56 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 29, 1997

The operative question is whether this resolution is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent. … First, we must decide what constitutes "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court."

Uvukansi v. Guerrero

126 F.4th 382 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 17, 2025

established Supreme Court precedent. … We conclude that Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that false credibility testimony may be material. Napue, 360 U.S. at 269. The state district court did not hold otherwise.

Rodriguez v. Shell Oil Company

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 23, 2000

its sovereign immunity in each of the federal cases. … Plaintiffs insist, however, that indirect ownership is insufficient to qualify an entity for foreign state status. We disagree.

Glen R. Hemingway v. Ochsner Clinic And/or Ochsner Foundation Hospital

608 F.2d 1040 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 27, 1979

Ochsner undertook at the trial to qualify from time to time the statements attributed to them. … As shown by our recitation of the facts, the defendant doctors clearly established the community standard touching on the prescribing of medication that constricted the blood vessels at a time when the jury could infer that

26 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1515, 26 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,085 Patricia A. Jackson, Cross-Appellant v. City of Killeen (Killeen Public Library), Cross-Appellee

654 F.2d 1181 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 4, 1981

To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff's rejection. … racial discrimination, the reviewing court must make an independent determination of the ultimate fact issue of discrimination, although it is bound by the district court's findings of subsidiary fact that are not themselves clearly

Raymond J. Donovan v. District Lodge No. 100, International Association Of Machinists And Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio

666 F.2d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 1, 1982

Here they clearly were not. The employees could have made arrangements to vote. … As argued by defendant, the preliminary support requirements in District 22, supra were much more severe than those present here, and clearly they resulted in the exclusion of "an undetermined number of otherwise qualified

Mary Carter v. Sea Land Services, Inc.

816 F.2d 1018 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 30, 1987

Employment Discrimination To establish a claim of disparate treatment under Title VII, Carter was required to show that Sea-Land intentionally discriminated against her, because of her race or sex, by failing to promote her … On review, we must affirm unless the findings are clearly erroneous, i.e., we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

Nelson Martinez Manzanares v. William Barr, U. S.

925 F.3d 222 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 24, 2019

The BIA likewise upheld the IJ’s determination that Martinez did not qualify for CAT protection. … We doubt any of Martinez’s proposed groups qualify as a particular social group.

Central Texas Savings & Loan Association v. United States

731 F.2d 1181 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 11, 1984

The benefit secured by the permit clearly extended beyond the year in which the fee payment was made. … This statute applies to amounts paid or incurred after July 29, 1980, and Central Texas cannot qualify for amortization of their expenditures.

Arabie J. Manuel v. P.A.W. Drilling & Well Service, Inc. Westwood Insurance Company, Ltd.

135 F.3d 344 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 2, 1998

The summary judgment evidence established that the workover rig had been bolted to this particular barge for more than two years. … In sum, the summary judgment evidence clearly reveals both “the purpose for which the craft [was] constructed and the business in which it [was] engaged.”

Moreau v. Klevenhagen

956 F.2d 516 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 1992

One letter concerns incentive payments made to employees following the completion of educational or career development programs and is clearly not applicable to the instant case. … As the payments are not measured by or dependent on hours worked, production or efficiency, we hold that the longevity payments qualify as "sums paid as gifts."

Alvin Hill, Cross-Appellant v. Lee Roy Black, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Cross-Appellees

887 F.2d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

In fact one prosecutor, without authority and without the knowledge of his colleagues, had offered Taliento immunity from prosecution if he would testify against Giglio. … His decision based on evaluations that a trial judge alone is most qualified to make — the credibility of witnesses before him and the legal resolution of the matrix of facts pertaining to the admissibility of evidence presented