Case law

Rosales v. Dretke

444 F.3d 703 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2006

The Texas court concluded Clearly appellant did not voice a clear objection to the use of the peremptory strikes by the prosecutor. … The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is entitled to exercise whatever leniency or grace it wishes in establishing its procedural rules.

Alexander v. Express Energy Services Operating, L.P.

784 F.3d 1032 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 7, 2015

Land-based workers are not seamen.” 6 To qualify as a seaman, a plaintiff must prove that he meets both prongs of the test set out by the 1 Bluebonnet Hotel Ventures, L.L.C. v. … the Jones Act,” though courts may vary the rule depending on the facts of a particular case. 10 The Court explained that although the inquiry is fact-specific, “where undisputed facts reveal that a maritime worker has a clearly

Chrysler Credit Corp. v. J. Truett Payne Co.

670 F.2d 575 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 19, 1982

After the dealer purchased the requisite number, it was paid a bonus for every car sold out of the qualifying stock. … Chrysler clearly sought to give each dealer a greater incentive to sell more cars.

Dennis Melancon v. City of New Orleans, et

703 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 18, 2012

“To have a property interest,” however, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … restricting the number of busses to the needs of the public, so as to occasion as little inconvenience as possible to the persons using the route and to insure to the holder of such certificate certain immunities

Adv Indicator v. Acadia Ins

50 F.4th 469 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 3, 2022

This argument is not clearly framed, and is in tension with, Advanced’s opening brief. Generally, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time at oral argument. See Martinez v. … But that case dealt with a different situation involving a defendant entitled to sovereign immunity.

Davis v. Richardson

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 9, 2022

“An assertion of qualified immunity alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof, shifting it to the plaintiff to show that the defense is not available, though [w]e still draw all inferences in the plaintiff’s … Consequently, we agree with the district court that the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, and summary judgment was properly granted on this claim. 4 Case: 22-

Provident Life & Accident Insurance v. Goel

274 F.3d 984 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 4, 2001

The case on which he relies did not, however, establish the per se rule that Dr. Goel currently advocates. … Thus, the appellant must establish a colorable claim before remand is justified. For example, in Barnhill v.

Richards v. McLane

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 6, 2023

McLane asserts a qualified immunity defense in response to Richards’s personal-capacity suit. … To assess a qualified immunity defense, a court must decide: “(1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established

Arvie v. Cathedral of Faith

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2025

immunity. … The district court did not consider qualified immunity or dismiss any defendant on that basis. This argument has no merit.

Fei Bian v. Hillary Clinton

605 F.3d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 27, 2010

alien, shall not be approved until an immigrant visa number has been allocated by the Department of State....” 9 As Bian contests the USCIS’s decision to adjudicate her application in compliance with regulations that are clearly … within the agency’s discretion to establish, the federal courts are without jurisdiction to entertain her claim. 2.

Brady v. Fort Bend County

145 F.3d 691 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 1998

On June 30, 1993, the County moved for summary judgment, and Molina also moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied both motions. … Given that a panel of this circuit unanimously concluded that Molina was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the Plaintiffs' claims, see Brady, 58 F.3d at 176 , it can hardly be said that the Plaintiffs'

Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc. And Dan Jenkins

426 F.2d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 6, 1970

statement was made with actual malice. 15 We thus proceed to an examination of the record, viewing it and the inferences which might be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to Bon Air, 16 to ascertain whether “the record established … These statements are clearly not 100% accurate.

Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works

910 F.2d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 1990

the rule chose deliberately, suggests that an expert may be qualified on any of the five bases listed. 27 A witness therefore can qualify as an expert even though he lacks practical experience, provided that he has received … It clearly does not mean that if a district court faced with the same circumstances rules the other way, its decision will be overturned. 35 For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err by accepting

United States v. Articles of Drug

625 F.2d 665 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 12, 1980

If the drugs do not qualify under one of the exemptions, they will be deemed misbranded and will be subject to condemnation. … This reminder labeling shall contain only the proprietary name of the drug product, if any; the established name of the drug product, if any; the established name of each active ingredient in the drug product; and, optionally

William L. Zink and Frances P. Zink v. United States

929 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 1991

She testified expressly that she and her husband did not actually participate in the *1019 business and that they were not qualified to do that type of work. … Obviously, establishment of the requisite profit motive alone does not satisfy section 174.

Ins Co. of the State of PA v. Dir, Off of W

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 2013

The disease is believed to be caused by immune cells—which normally protect the body from foreign infection—attacking the body’s nerves. … We agree. 8  No. 12-20228 The Supreme Court has stated clearly that the Section 20(a) presumption applies to the claim. U.S.

Clarence Enochs v. Lampasas County

641 F.3d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 17, 2011

bound to consider and weigh “all the factors” when determining whether a district court abused its discretion by failing to remand, id. at 590, and in this case the overall balance of the statutory and common law factors clearly … In any case, the Supreme Court’s instruction for district courts to “guard against forum manipulation” is explicitly qualified for situations such as this one, where other considerations weigh heavily in favor of remand.

Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs

747 F.3d 275 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 2014

First, I.R.C. § 42 requires that the designated state agency adopt a “Qualified Allocation Plan” (“QAP”) that prescribes the “selection criteria.” See id. at § 42(m)(l)(A)-(B). … Our own review of the record does not clearly resolve which of these challenges to the prima facie case of disparate impact were waived in the district court.

Laird v. Spencer

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 2025

The cases that established absolute judicial immunity “recognized that the immunity was designed to further the public interest in an independent judiciary, sometimes at the expense of legitimate individual grievances,” but … Such conjecture does not establish the requisite threat of future harm. 72 We conclude, therefore, that even if absolute judicial immunity does not bar Laird’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, Laird lacks

United States v. Ray Nevin Stetter, Jr.

445 F.2d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 23, 1971

God clearly defined what sin was and that one of the greatest sins is to kill. … That case simply requires that the registrant establish “a sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption