Case law

Furnell Severin v. Jefferson Parish

357 F. App'x 601 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 16, 2009

Monetary Damages It is well established that judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from lawsuits that cannot be overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice. Stump v. Steward, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978). … Judicial immunity is clearly applicable in cases, such as the instant one, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Steward, 435 U.S. at 356; Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-55 (1967).

Ridgely v. Federal Emergency Management Agency

512 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 2008

In general, FEMA may provide assistance to individuals and households who qualify for such assistance under section 408 of the Stafford Act and this subpart. … These four elements present mixed questions of law and fact; we leave factual findings undisturbed unless clearly erroneous, but review legal conclusions de novo. Guy Carpenter & Co. v.

Guillory v. Domtar Industries Inc.

95 F.3d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 30, 1996

Similarly, Deere asserts that the jury was clearly erroneous in failing to find Guillory contributorily negligent. … The testimony clearly provided that the fork, not the conveyor lay inches from Guillory immediately after the accident.

Sadegh Shamloo v. Mississippi State Board of Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning

620 F.2d 516 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 1980

Colleges and universities are not immune from the requirements of the First Amendment. Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 , 92 S.Ct. 2338 , 33 L.Ed.2d 266 (1972). … This court clearly established the requirements for granting a preliminary injunction in Canal Authority of Florida v.

United States v. Ortiz-Rodriguez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 23, 2025

Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A), which qualified as an aggravated felony at that time. … He merely asserts that because the Department of Homeland Security classified his evading arrest conviction as an aggravated felony, and that conviction was later held not to qualify as such, he has sufficiently established

Mabee Petroleum Corp. v. United States

203 F.2d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 17, 1953

Mabee, with only three qualifying shares to others. The *874 directors and officers were J. E. Mabee, President and Treasurer; L.. E. Mabee, Vice-President; John W. … of the Mabee Foundation was as follows: “To aid all Christian religious organizations, charitable organizations, preparatory, vocational and technical schools, institutions of higher learning, and scientific research; to establish

Ketchum v. Gulf Oil Corp.

798 F.2d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1986

(stating that § 905(a) “immunizes a compensation-paying employer from third party claims for contribution”); Lopez v. … The holding of a panel of this court must comport with prior panel decisions, until changed by this court acting en banc, or unless the Supreme Court either clearly holds or teaches to the contrary.

Viegelahn v. Frost (In Re Frost)

744 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 2014

The bankruptcy court based its conclusion on this court’s opinion in In re Zibman, which held that proceeds from the pre-petition sale of a Texas homestead are not permanently immune from bankruptcy creditors. 268 F.3d 298 … The “property exempted under this section” is the property exempted under Texas law, which clearly differentiates between a “homestead” and “proceeds of a sale of a homestead.”

Moon v. Olivarez

26 F.4th 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 10, 2022

Finally, the district court concluded Olivarez and Dove were entitled to official immunity under Texas state law. Moon has timely appealed. III. … Thus, the lineup, and Dove’s participation in it, did not clearly direct, request, or result in Moon’s arrest.

United States v. Rex Don Stamps

430 F.2d 33 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 15, 1970

Freeman, 2 Cir. 1962, 302 F.2d 347 , 351: “When a defendant calls government agents to the stand in an effort to establish some part of his defense he should be given every reasonable leeway in bringing out whatever may be … and, as Professor Morgan has aptly said: ‘The fact is that the general prohibition, if it ever had any basis in reason, has no place in any rational system of investigation in modern society and all attempts to modify or qualify

United States v. Moses

94 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 21, 1996

Clearly, the INS used these questions to ascertain whether Moses was living in marital union with his citizen spouse. … After the couple separated, Moses established a residence in Texas with Dianne Anderson, and had a daughter with her.

Bay Area Unitarian v. Ogg

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 2026

The armed patron was informed that he must ensure his firearm was concealed at all times because the establishment posted Section 30.07 signage prohibiting open carry. … She could not establish causation or redressability because there was no direct nexus between nonprosecution and her injury: missed support payments.

United States v. Jackson

636 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 2011

affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trial—they are not testimonial.” … As the foregoing discussion makes clear, there is very little support for qualifying these ledgers as admissible business records.

United States v. Mortimer Schaffer

600 F.2d 1120 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 1979

It is an attempt to analyze the testimony of this class of witnesses, and the statement that they were believable and very honest witnesses was qualified by the term “by and large.” … The defendant has failed to establish plain error on this issue.

Arthur X. Carson v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

112 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 1997

The tradition of ready access to federal habeas relief is well-established for state prisoners. Therefore, we conclude that the new PLRA requirements do not apply to habeas petitions under § 2254. C. … Aug.30, 1993) (per curiam) (unpublished) (affirming denial of qualified immunity); Carson v. Waldron, No. 92-4375, 978 F.2d 709 (5th Cir.

Raul Espino, Jr., Etc. v. Raul Besteiro

708 F.2d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 5, 1983

Raul’s confinement in a five foot plastic cubicle clearly supports a substantial claim under the fourteenth amendment, which is sufficient to support federal jurisdiction. … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Diane Pilcher, Roger Gary, George Meeks and the Libertarian Party of Texas v. Jack M. Rains, Secretary of State of Texas

853 F.2d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 1988

BACKGROUND Texas election law establishes several requirements before a minor party may appear on the ballot. … This finding is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 .

United States v. Franklin D. Wilson and Gary Wayne Bugbee

578 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 1978

While some portions of the recording are inaudible and unintelligible, much of it can be heard clearly. Certainly, defendants have not shown an abuse of the district court’s discretion. … We understand that a prosecutor loathes an acquittal, which would immunize from further prosecution, over all else.

United States v. Rey Guerrero-Navarro

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 20, 2014

The district court concluded that the aforementioned Washington state offense qualifies as a crime of violence under USSG § 4B1.2(a). … Consider prohibitions on arson or vandalism: clearly legislators must protect many kinds of structures from these crimes.

Nickel v. Est of Lurline Estes

122 F.3d 294 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 22, 1997

Clearly, the plan says nothing about anyone disclaiming on behalf of the beneficiary or entitled beneficiary. … The quoted sentence clearly requires a beneficiary to sign and deliver a written disclaimer that also meets the Code’s requirements for being tax qualified.