Case law

Cervantez v. Whitfield

776 F.2d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 1985

Subsection (d) is mandatory inasmuch as it states that a court "must award fees to qualifying parties under the circumstances of (d)(1)(A)" Alspach v. … Award actual and punitive damages to plaintiffs according to proof as established at the time of trial; h.

State of Louisiana, Ex Rel. William J. Guste, Jr., and Save Our Coast, Inc., Cross-Appellants v. Colonel Robert C. Lee, Cross-Appellees

853 F.2d 1219 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 6, 1988

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ are clearly entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act ...”. This Court recently stated in Griffon v. U.S. … establishes that the Corps knew that the permit renewal might degrade the quality of some human environmental factor.

James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Harry Jaffe

261 F.2d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 2, 1958

Clearly, this 100 tons of scrap metal comes within the literal definition of “goods.” … To be sure, a watchman may qualify as one whose work is a “ * * * closely related process or occupation directly essential to the production” of goods.

Veasey v. Abbott

796 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 5, 2015

Of those, 534,512 voters *506 did not qualify for a disability exemption from SB 14’s requirements. Id. … It clearly delineated each step of its analysis, finding that: (1) SB 14 specifically burdens Texans living in poverty, who are less likely to possess qualified photo ID, are less able to get it, and may not otherwise need

Shirlei Kirschner Camejo v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration

838 F.2d 1374 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1988

The defendants here clearly met this burden. Rec. Vol. I at 34-80. The Air Crash court continued: This burden of persuasion runs to all the elements of the forum non conveniens analysis. … Therefore, the moving defendant must establish that an adequate and available forum exists as to all defendants if there are several.

Coats v. Penrod Drilling Corp.

61 F.3d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 1995

Under American law, the court determined that Coats was not a Jones Act seaman and was not entitled to maintenance and cure (and associated damages), but the court found that Coats qualified as a Sieracki seaman with the … Thus, as the district court clearly found, Coats’ employment contract was formed in Mississippi, and this factor favors United States law. Cf.

Deborah Biles, Administratrix of the Estate of Dennis B. Biles, Plaintiff v. United States

848 F.2d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 8, 1988

The pilots, however, elected to undertake a VFR flight despite the warning and the fact that the pilots were qualified and the aircraft was equipped for IFR, instrument flight rules, flight. … To the extent subsidiary findings of fact inform the court’s conclusion concerning duty, they are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. See Daley, 792 F.2d at 1085 , Miller v.

Bursztajn v. USA

367 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 29, 2004

The district court’s conclusion that the pilots acted reasonably is not clearly erroneous. See Samson, 242 F.3d at 632. … from suit, including worker’s compensation immunity.

Penn v. Schlesinger

497 F.2d 970 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 1974

Clearly no such objection as this is available on a motion to dismiss. … The head of each executive department and agency shall establish and maintain an affirmative program of equal employment opportunity for all civilian employees and applicants for employment within his jurisdiction in accordance

John R. Russell v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

437 F.2d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 10, 1971

Appellant Prudential vigorously maintains this well-established rule does not apply to the case at bar for the reason of the provision in the policy which prohibits disability benefits when the insured is “engaged in his … Cognizant of our duty to refrain from disturbing the trial court’s finding unless it is clearly erroneous, 2 we hold there was ample evidence that the insured was disabled from performing the functions of his job in the usual

Hancock v. Bay City Texas

263 F. App'x 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 28, 2008

Baker moved for summary judgment that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim. … Qualified Immunity “The well-established test for qualified immunity requires [this Court] to engage in a two-step inquiry.

W.H. Scott Construction Co. v. City of Jackson

199 F.3d 206 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 24, 2000

In 1988, the Department established its own policy for the use of the City’s goals. … A district judge’s assessment of damages is also a finding of fact which, absent error of law, is entitled to the deferential clearly erroneous standard of review. See Broehms v.

Humphrey v. Hall

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 29, 2023

Because the defendants asserted the defense of qualified immunity, the usual summary judgment burden is altered; after the defense was pleaded, the burden shifted to Humphrey to show that the defense was unavailable … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, the court reviews: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly established at the time

Moore v. Cockrell

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 27, 2008

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, however, we find that Guyton’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established 7 … Guyton is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Bayou Fleet Partnership, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Dravo Basic Materials Company Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant, Dravo Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant. Dravo Basic Materials Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Bayou Fleet, Incorporated, And/or Bayou Fleet Partnership, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee

106 F.3d 691 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1997

Dravo established the aggregate yard to store, stockpile, and sell limestone extracted from quarries in Illinois and Kentucky and transported down the Mississippi River to the yard. 3 Dravo established three stockpiles of … The loose stockpiles of limestone were not; nor do they qualify as an immovable under any other applicable provision of the Civil Code.

United States v. Jimenez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 2001

Based on these facts, we cannot find that the district court clearly erred in determining that the government offered Jimenez only use immunity.25 B 24 … His subjective belief cannot, by itself, establish transactional immunity. 28  Secondly, we consider whether Jimenez’s 1994 debriefing contributed, either directly or

United States v. 8.41 Acres of Land

680 F.2d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 1982

The “unity” of a tract normally becomes an issue where landowners are seeking to qualify for “severance damages” to property not taken. … erroneous in establishing the highest and best use of the land taken as pipeline right-of-way.

United States v. Bass

996 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 11, 2021

Reasonable suspicion is considerably easier for the government to establish than probable cause. United States v. Tellez, 11 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1993). … “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible, considering the record as a whole.” Id.

Delta Fuel Company, Inc. v. Randy Maxwell

485 F. App'x 685 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2012

Delta alleged that the defendants individually and as co-conspirators violated its clearly established rights to protect its property, to access the courts, and to be treated equally under the law. … ;4 (4) that Caldwell was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as a state official acting in his official capacity and to absolute prosecutorial immunity for his decision to dismiss criminal charges against Barry Maxwell

Eleanore Higginbotham Aretz v. United States of America, Thomas F. Aretz v. United States

604 F.2d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 15, 1979

Thus our review is limited to the question whether the district court was clearly erroneous. Georgia law defines and limits proximate cause by the scope of foreseeable injury. See, e. g., Williams v. … The Tort Claims Act deals with sovereign immunity— that is, with whether the United States may be sued for certain torts; it does not define what are torts. .