Case law

Steere Tank Lines, Inc. v. United States

577 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 28, 1978

Our thorough review in Moczygemba of the governing Louisiana law thus *276 establishes two propositions. First, “ruin” is a prerequisite to liability under Article 2322. … These qualifiers, while hardly words of limitation, do admit of interpretation and sometimes subtle distinction. See, e. g., Martin Wright Electric Co. v. W. R.

Donna Clyce v. Hunt County Texas

515 F. App'x 319 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 4, 2013

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual detention officers, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacities. … The Clyces appeal only the summary judgment in favor of Hunt County and do not contest the qualified-immunity summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants.

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.

Perez v. United States

312 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 27, 2002

The law is well established that the government or any of its instrumentalities may not be sued by a citizen without the government’s express consent.10 In this case, Perez has brought suit under § 2410, which … is clearly a waiver of sovereign immunity.

W. Thcker Blaine, Sr. v. United States

441 F.2d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 1971

United States brings this appeal contending that insurance expirations are goodwill of an insurance agency and not depreciable as a matter of law, and even if they are depreciable the finding of a useful life of six years is clearly … United States where it was said: To qualify intangible property for amortization, taxpayers had the burden of establishing that it was of use in the business for only a limited time and that the length of this period was

McPherson v. Rankin

786 F.2d 1233 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 19, 1986

If it is established that the speech in question is addressed to “matters of public concern,” we are required to balance the first amendment interest in protecting the employee’s freedom of expression against the government … Regardless of her intent, however, McPherson’s comment clearly addressed a matter of public concern.

Kristensen v. United States

993 F.3d 363 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 6, 2021

P. 52(a)(6) (“Findings of fact . . . must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous . . . .”). 4 Becker v. … This argument overlooks what the plaintiffs had to show to establish proximate causation; namely, that Ms.

In Re W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections

516 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 1975

Were we to grant the Writ sought in this proceeding, we would be circumventing the rule of finality and subverting well-established lines of appellate review in matters of this sort. … We see no reason to ignore the rule of finality and the clearly established modes of review for orders of the type in question. B.

Curtis Graves v. Ben Barnes

700 F.2d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 17, 1983

Finally, the district *222 court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. … The court may increase the amount established in the computation of the “lodestar” as a reasonable fee on the basis of a careful evaluation of the following factors: 1. Analysis of plaintiff’s burden.

Charles Ben Howell v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff

516 F.2d 53 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 1975

There is, however, a clearly recognized distinction between the effects of a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question and a denial of certiorari. … Wilson, 421 U.S. 309 , 95 S.Ct. 1802 , 44 L.Ed.2d 186 (1975) (# 73 — 1162), two witnesses, in *59 disobedience of court orders, refused to testify at a criminal trial after receiving grants of immunity.

Franklin YEAGER, Walter Brandt, Don C. Yeager and Mark Yeager, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY of McGREGOR, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

980 F.2d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 8, 1993

This self-qualifying reference does not decide the present case. … The Court has similarly qualified Evans, v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296 , 86 S.Ct. 486 , 15 L.Ed.2d 373 (1966), as establishing a narrow, fact-specific application of the public function concept.

John W. McGowan v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

604 F.2d 885 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 1979

First, the administrative framework established by Congress in the Act is a finely tuned machine designed to promote expert and consistent administration. … At any rate, the Commission properly denied this motion, for the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the award of attorney’s fees and costs to be taxed against an agency of the United States unless there is Congressional

United States v. David Leslie Middlebrooks

618 F.2d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 14, 1980

This instruction adequately covered the same points addressed by the defendant’s requested charges, and, in fact, stated the same principles more clearly and articulately. … Well— “THE COURT: You are not fully and freely volunteering testimony about criminal acts being done; you’re testifying under immunity and that’s the reason you’re saying anything at all, is that it? “A. Yes, sir.

Alton Montgomery v. O.A. "Bob" Brookshire, Sheriff of Ector County, Texas, and Ector County, Texas

34 F.3d 291 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 20, 1994

, discharged), (3) that he was replaced by a younger person, and (4) that he was qualified for the job. … By contrast, the deputy sheriffs in Ector County are clearly bottom-level employees.

Carty v. TX Dept of Pub Sfty

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2009

Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808, 813 (2009) (“[P]etitioners are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established as the time of the search that their conduct was unconstitutional.”). 5 … I do not suggest that there must be a judicial decision “on all fours” before the law is clearly established for the purposes of official immunity. The Supreme Court observed in Hope v.

Johnson v. Pride Industries

7 F.4th 392 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 2021

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on a failure-to-promote theory, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he sought and was qualified for a position for which … Accordingly, Johnson did not establish that he was qualified for the position and therefore has failed to carry his burden to establish a prima facie case on his failure-to- promote claim. Cf. Davis v.

Belt v. EmCare, Inc.

444 F.3d 403 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 6, 2006

which held that an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation is controlling Nurse practitioners provide basic preven- unless clearly … exemption from FLSA overtime requirements rowly would make little sense, since he is free to write the regulations as broadly as he wishes, sub- for a retail establishment

National Labor Relations Board v. The Hertz Corporation

449 F.2d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 20, 1971

Yingling was clearly in sympathy with the Union’s organizational drive. Burns learned of her involvement in the conversation with Martin. … Martin, it was asserted, was well trained and qualified for the new job. Originally, Martin agreed to the transfer, assuming that she would be re-transferred to her old position when the sick employee returned.

Magnolia Bar Association, Inc. v. Roy Noble Lee

994 F.2d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 1993

They contend that the only evidence that the election of these two black judges was not aberrational is the testimony of the Defendants’ expert witness, who they contend was not qualified to render such an opinion. … In any event, these questions about hypothesizing more seats or drawing more lines to establish the first Gingles requirement are best left for another day.

Jerry Lynn Young v. Robert Herring, Lee County Sheriff

917 F.2d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 6, 1990

Reed to establish an independent and adequate state ground for decision. … We thus concluded that he did not qualify for the Wainwright v. Sykes “cause and prejudice” exception to the doctrine.