Case law

United States v. Abel Garcia

917 F.2d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 14, 1990

A finding that a defendant does not qualify for minimal or minor participant reduction is fact-dependent and will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Thomas, 870 F.2d at 177 . … This conclusion was not clearly erroneous. III. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Crawford v. Hinds Cty Bd of Supr

1 F.4th 371 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 2021

Title II of the ADA says that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a … Furlough cannot . . . establish standing retroactively.”). Crawford’s theory of standing complies with these established principles.

United States v. Wright

211 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 1, 2000

To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. … Because this use of special skills did further the conspiracy, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to apply the enhancement.

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).

David Matthew Lathers v. United States

396 F.2d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 1968

This immunity from exclusion gained the label “silver platter” doctrine following Justice Frankfurter’s opinion in Lustig v. … Clearly, the Elkins exception to the prior immunity of state arrests was limited to violations of constitutional rights, as opposed to any rights granted in a federal proceeding by judicial supervisory power.

Murphy v. Cartwright

202 F.2d 71 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 6, 1953

Appellee qualified and was appointed executor of his father’s estate on March 1, 1949. … It follows that the trial court’s finding to- the contrary is clearly erroneous and must be set aside.

Jerrene L'Amoreaux v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A

755 F.3d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2014

Because the L’Amoreauxes do not state a claim against Barrett Daffin even if attorney immunity does not apply, we do not decide the immunity question. … The parties dispute what qualifies as “fraudulent” under the statute, but agree that, at the very least, the document must represent a lien or claim that does not actually exist.

William Lee v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

837 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 2016

First, the precedent cited above describes the decision to amend a pension plan concerning the composition or design of the plan as a settlor function, immune from fiduciary strictures. … Although disputed by Appellants, the terms of the amendment clearly provide that the Plan will have no obligation to make any payment for the pension benefits of the Transferee Class after the annuity transaction.

Bickham Lincoln-Mercury Incorporated v. United States

168 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 4, 1999

The district court was not clearly erroneous in determining that civil penalties were not prohibited by the plea agreement. … However, the plea agreement does not state that Bickham is immune from civil liability pursuant to Section 6721. In fact, there is no mention of civil liability in the plea agreement.

Hurman Lee Turner v. Costa Line Cargo Services, Inc.

744 F.2d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 25, 1984

Despite these broad areas of immunity, however, there are circumstances where the owner cannot escape liability by reliance upon the stevedore. … of “obviously improvident” judgment, work on in the face of the hazard rather than stop work or take the measures, trivial in this case, required to remedy it. 3 Our precedents following Scindia seem to me plainly to establish

Cathryn Stout v. Albert Santa Cruz

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

then clearly established law.” … An official’s qualified immunity defense prevails “[i]f no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.

Cornerstone Christian Schools v. University Interscholastic League

563 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2009

The complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish the Farharts’ standing at the time of filing. … In this case, plaintiffs have not alleged that section 12(d) establishes a program or system of subjective, individualized consideration.

Rogers v. Hierholzer

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 1, 2021

“A qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof.” Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010). … In such a case, the plaintiff is required to “adduce summary judgment evidence indicating that the [defendant’s] actions violated clearly established 2 Case: 20-50105

United States v. Hao Tien Nguyen

190 F.3d 656 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 22, 1999

In determining whether a defendant qualifies for this downward adjustment, “appropriate considerations include . . . truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the offense(s) of conviction.” … They establish Nguyen’s leadership role is a carefully planned robbery, which from the outset contemplated accosting and restraining one or more Cyrix employees with firearms.

Amoco Production Company v. Donald P. Hodel, Secretary of Department of the Interior, Defendants

815 F.2d 352 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 29, 1987

However, in the “murky” area of Tucker Act jurisprudence, see Sarasota, 799 F.2d at 679 , one of the few clearly established principles is that the substance of the pleadings must prevail over their form. … That clearly would not be Tucker Act claim. Cf. Price, II v.

Cathy Bailey v. Dallas County Texas

517 F. App'x 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 26, 2013

PER CURIAM:* This is an interlocutory appeal in which five individual Defendants who were detention officers at the Dallas County Jail assert qualified immunity. … Accordingly, Mouille clarifies that Plaintiff in this case was not required to present evidence that Defendants’ use of excessive force was the exclusive cause of her son’s death; so long as the injury resulted from “clearly

Taylor Bell v. Itawamba County School Board

799 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 2015

Moreover, the court concluded, inter alia: (1) the superintendent and principal were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities; and (2) Bell’s mother could not show a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment … Because the summary judgment against Bell’s mother’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and for the school officials’ qualified-immunity claim was not contested on appeal, the only issue before our en-banc court is the summary judgment

Lucky Tunes 3, L.L.C. v. Larry Smith

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 1, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials sued in their individual capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Lucky Tunes has failed to plead a violation of any constitutional right, much less a clearly established one, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Wirth Limited and Hoesch Siegerlandwerke A. G. Siegen v. S/s Acadia Forest and Lash Barge No. Cg-204, Eurogulf Lines D/B/A Central Gulf Contramar Line

537 F.2d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 30, 1976

But clearly such shipments would be subject to COGSA for cargo damage during the protected non-salt water leg of the voyage. 45 . … United States, 5 Cir., 1975, 522 F.2d 708 , 714-15 we said: We need not and do not find the District Court’s findings of fact to be clearly erroneous. Cf. F.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

Zastrow v. Houston Auto Imports Greenway Ltd.

789 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 2015

Witness retaliation is a separate crime covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1513, the violation of which also qualifies as a predicate act under RICO. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). … Defendants’ purported misconduct, however, clearly does not fall under this statute (and Zastrow does not argue that it does).