Case law

Reed v. Scott

70 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 1995

substantive or procedural, that is independent of the merits of the federal claim and is adequate to support the judgment.6 A state ground is "independent" if the last reasoned state court opinion7 clearly … In Payton, the court stated "when the issue concerns denial of a challenge for cause or exclusion of a qualified venireman, only the examination of the individual venireman need be in the record." Id. at 680.

Ingrid Fisher v. Halliburton

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

Insurgent attacks on KBR convoys no doubt qualify as willful acts by third persons. … All of the evidence pointed to by Plaintiffs and the district court establishes that insurgents were attacking targets related to those efforts.

Texas Food Industry Assoc. v. United States Department Of Agriculture

81 F.3d 578 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 30, 1996

Because EAJA is a partial waiver of sovereign immunity, it must be strictly construed in the government's favor. Ardestani v. … At first glimpse, NAWGA apparently qualifies for an award.

United States v. Long

562 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2009

We could then say that those diagnoses do not qualify as severe. … [a]s it appears that Keen’s counsel sought to do little more than establish that Keen suffered from a mental disease or defect as opposed to establishing the effect that this condition had upon his ability to appreciate the

Uyless Jones v. City of Houston

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 20, 2018

When a public official pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of citing authority that clearly establishes the unlawfulness of the alleged violation. See Wyatt v. … Sept. 5, 2018) (affirming grant of qualified immunity because plaintiff “d[id] not cite to any controlling authority establishing that the [defendants’ alleged conduct] would have violated a clearly established right under

Eastwood v. Cook

85 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 9, 1996

PER CURIAM:* Cook and Gore have appealed the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment based on a qualified immunity claim. … The facts admitted or alleged by appellee or which the trial court determined to be not genuinely disputed do not, of themselves, establish that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,007 Willie Bell, Jr. v. Health-Mor, Inc.

549 F.2d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 24, 1977

established and applied by the vendors) and that the person actually submits to a sales demonstration of a vacuum cleaner. … The payment of the $10 fee was dependent upon a qualified customer’s submitting to a sales demonstration.

Ayers v. Western Line Consolidated School District

555 F.2d 1309 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 1977

That finding is not clearly erroneous. … The district court’s findings of these subsidiary facts are not clearly erroneous.

Travis RIPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee

67 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 30, 1995

To prove disability resulting from pain, an individual must establish a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing disabling pain. 16 Once a medical impairment is established, the subjective complaints … What the record does not clearly establish is the effect Ripley’s condition had on his ability to work. 27 The only evidence regarding Ripley’s ability to work came from Ripley’s own testimony. 28 Therefore, on remand, we

Highland Resources, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission

537 F.2d 1336 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 3, 1976

Ill In sum, we hold that the FPC’s finding that neither Highland nor Brown qualified for small producer certification is conclusive since it is supported by substantial evidence. … On the other hand, the Commission’s refusal to give nunc pro tunc effect to the rate filings of Highland was clearly arbitrary and must be reversed.

Melissa MIGIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. PEARLE VISION, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee

135 F.3d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 10, 1998

The court credited MeQuay’s testimony that Mig-is was qualified for a senior programmer position. … The calculation of attorney’s fees involves a well-established process.

Curtis P. BALDWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

667 F.2d 458 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 8, 1982

This language clearly suggests that a plaintiff may institute suit based on the ADEA in either state or federal court. … If the action of the district court in granting summary judgment was based only upon appellant’s failure to establish the third above stated element of a prima facie case of age discrimination, as he insists that it was,

Wrenn v. Houston Commty Clge

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2001

That court was also correct in concluding that there is no evidence that Hayes’s “conduct violated any clearly established constitutional right nor that he had knowledge of or was deliberately indifferent to any constitutional … violation by any of his subordinates” and that he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Jones

136 F.4th 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 29, 2025

B (“[T]he Commission was . . . informed by existing legislation, including the congressionally established criteria for the statutory safety valve at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) . . . .”); see also Pulsifer v. … Wilkie, 588 U.S. 58(2019), did not clearly overrule Stinson v.

Amador Ramirez, Jr., Individually, as Administrator of the Estate of Ana Maria S. De Ramirez, Deceased v. Autobuses Blancos Flecha Roja, S.A. De C.V.

486 F.2d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 2, 1973

The operative language establishing the cause of action is phrased in the idiom of tort. 8 . 350 S.W.2d at 577 . … Although it appears that appellee relied upon an unauthenticated copy of the Mexican codes to establish dissimilarity, Garza is inapplicable to this Erie-based proceeding since F.R.Civ.P. 44.1 clearly and properly permits

United States v. Carl Murphy, Jr.

703 F.2d 1335 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 1983

For this reason, any imagined error clearly does not reach the level of plain error. … He maintains that the government’s proof failed to establish that acceptance of the social security and VA checks furthered his scheme to defraud the government.

James P. Mitchell v. Sunshine Department Stores, Inc.

292 F.2d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 1961

Walling, 324 U.S. 490 , 65 S.Ct. 807 , 89 L.Ed. 1095 , where it was held that the central office and warehouse of a chain store system do not qualify for the "retail establishment" exemption. … for the "retail establishment" exemption contained in Section 13(a) (2).

Randolph S. Jackson and Martha S. Jackson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Mbank Houston, N.A.

981 F.2d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 1992

MBank agreed to finance sixty percent of the stock purchase price for each qualified employee. … He is asserting a claim against the FDIC that if successful would clearly diminish or defeat the value of the assets acquired from MBank by the FDIC.

In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena Dated December 17, 1996

148 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 27, 1998

To qualify for financial assistance, a state must obtain certification from the Secretary, of Agriculture. See 7 U.S.C. § 5101 (a). … Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 , 94 S.Ct. 3090 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), we will not infer one where Congress has not clearly manifested an intent to create one.

Joseph Rudolph Hamilton v. Armstrong Cork Company

371 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 27, 1967

The superior knowledge principle adverted to in Quinnelly was simply another way of stating the established Florida rule in cases of this kind. … It did not qualify Peninsular, Hall or Hickory House . We hold that the facts made out a jury question as to whether the defendant was negligent under the circumstances of this case.