Case law

William Wiley v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 17, 2010

established federal law. … Because the Tennessee courts unreasonably applied federal law clearly established by Ford, this Court does not afford AEDPA deference to their dismissal of Thompson’s petition.”).

Lusk v. Foxmeyer Health Corp.

129 F.3d 773 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 11, 1997

The appellants argue that they established this nexus with evidence of interrelated operations and NII's involvement in the RIF plan. … The decision-makers clearly were the managers and supervisors of the parent corporation and not the 8 Suitable evidence of centralized labor and employment decisions includes parental control of hiring

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Dunning

252 F.3d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 22, 2001

Neither the district court nor the parties raised an issue concerning whether the Eclipse qualified as an uninsured motor vehicle as to each of the injured passengers. … The undisputed evidence establishes that Virginia chose the car at the dealership, made monthly car payments, and kept her own set of keys. While Mr.

North Mississippi Communications, Inc. v. Douglas W. Jones

792 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 1986

The court did find that the Times failed to establish that it had lost any subscriptions because of the agreement, and this finding cannot be reversed unless clearly erroneous. … They do not hold that blanketing, in and of itself, necessarily establishes the requisite intent.

Fox v. Vice

594 F.3d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 20, 2010

As to the fabricated basketball game incident, Fox cannot show a deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the United States Constitution and its laws. … Looking to the second factor, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Appellees did not engage in settlement negotiations with Fox.

Donalson v. McLeaish

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 2023

immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct … .20 Under this burden shifting regime, the public official asserting qualified immunity does _____________________ 15 See generally Terry v.

United States v. Juan Castillo-Rivera

836 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 2, 2016

A defendant’s showing that the plain language of a state statute clearly criminalizes conduct that is outside the 1I also note that the federal statute contains several exclusions that the state statute does not … The Government therefore has not satisfied its burden to establish that the state statute is divisible. See Mathis v. United States, 136 S.

Murray W. (Dusty) Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., Transamerican Press of Texas, Inc. And Mike Parkhurst

621 F.2d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 1980

However, in its order of October 17, 1977, it clearly stated that it had as yet made no ruling on this issue. … The only way that Miller can establish malice and prove his case is to show that Transamerican knew the story was false or that it was reckless to rely on the informant.

Jim Beard and Hubbard Beard v. Melvin Stephens

372 F.2d 685 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 31, 1967

Claim (3), against the sheriff and Major Cameron and Windle, acting as deputies, is clearly governed by Tit. 7, § 21. … The common law immunity of judicial officers applies in actions for damages brought under the Civil Right Acts as in this case. Gay v.

Matthew Rives McGehee of the Estate of Delia Crawford McGehee Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

260 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 14, 1958

The Supreme Court of Florida has established precedents which point for us the way to decision. The form of the will construed in Roberts v. … Indeed it is difficult to see how the intent could have been more clearly expressed.

Ida PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

416 F.2d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 13, 1969

It is this self-imposed interpretive straightjacket which, I believe, leads the Court to the extremes of “either/or” outright per se violation with no defense or virtual complete immunity from the Act’s prohibitions. … The man would qualify even though as widower or divorcé he had sole custody of and responsibility for pre-school children. 6 .

Weir v. Federal Asset Disposition Ass'n

123 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 1997

Schlumberger Tech., Inc., 944 F.2d 26, 31 (1st Cir.1991) ("Federal courts have established no hard and fast rule that an individual must suffer a period of unemployment to qualify for severance benefits under ERISA. … Under the second definition, the FDIC is clearly a Successor to FADA; upon passage of FIRREA, the FDIC had authority to appoint all of FADA's directors.

Karleen B. Medaris v. United States

884 F.2d 832 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 2, 1989

While Washington and Arizona law immunize the wife’s share of the community from the husband’s premarital creditors, California law subjects the wife’s share of the community to such claims. … These sections of the Texas Family Code clearly establish that Michael has a property interest in his income and that this property is subject to all liabilities incurred by Michael.

Leonard Levitt v. The University of Texas at El Paso and Haskell Monroe, Individually and as Representative of Utep

759 F.2d 1224 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 10, 1985

That conclusion is amply supported by the evidence and is not clearly erroneous. Fed. … a meaningful opportunity to contest those charges before an unbiased tribunal that was qualified to evaluate them.

Foreman v. Dallas County Texas

193 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 1999

We have held that under the catalyst theory a plaintiff may obtain attorney’s fees as a prevailing party only if it establishes (1) that the relief sought by plaintiff was in fact obtained, and (2) that the suit itself caused … The district court’s exclusive reliance on those three affidavits was clearly erroneous.

United States v. Abraham Leroy Baker and James Osborne, Jr.

609 F.2d 134 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 2, 1980

Others are such that to limit their locus to the strictly territorial jurisdiction would be greatly to curtail the scope and usefulness of the statute and leave open a large immunity for frauds as easily committed by citizens … Yet, the location of the vessel clearly indicated an intent to distribute marijuana within United States boundaries.

Three Expo Events, L.L.C. v. City of Dallas, Texas

907 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 24, 2018

After setting aside the district court’s clearly erroneous findings of fact, we must apply the clearly established legal principles governing standing to the evidence of record. … evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”

Waganer v. Sea-Land Service

486 F.2d 955 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 1973

This circuit has applied this exception only when the repair contractor's sole custody and control has been established. … If it did our review would be under the "clearly erroneous" doctrine of Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P. McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19 , 75 S.Ct. 6 , 99 L.Ed.20.

Allen Bates v. Joe Orozco

424 F. App'x 279 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 29, 2011

Bates contends the district court erred in ruling that Officer Orozco was entitled to qualified immunity. … When defendant asserts qualified immunity, the court must determine whether plaintiff presents a violation of a statutory or constitutional right and, if he does, “whether that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. C & P Shoe Corporation, C & P Shoe Corporation v. W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor

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