Case law

Sierra Club v. Lynn

502 F.2d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 1974

It is undisputed that the developer must meet any state or federal water standards that may be established in the future. … Clearly, no such considerations within the ambit of the first two exceptions to the American Rule exist in this case.

League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements

999 F.2d 831 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1993

It reasons: The evidence in Dallas County clearly establishes that judicial elections are decided on the basis of partisan voting patterns. … He also alleges that he is a resident of Dallas County and is duly qualified and registered to vote in the county.

Lloyd Nelson v. United States

415 F.2d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 1969

It was clearly established that Hopkins, Seawell and Guerrero planned and carried out the actual burglary. Appellant knew Seawell prior to the burglary. … Moreover, it appears that this information was accessible to appellant prior to trial and, therefore, cannot qualify as “newly discovered” evidence.

Johnson v. Sawyer

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 29, 1992

As the dissent rightly points out, § 2680(h) retains governmental immunity for liable and slander. … The law clearly is, and has been in this Circuit since well before any of the events at issue, that establishing a violation of section 7201 requires a finding 49  The April

Horaist v. Doctor's Hospital of Opelousas

255 F.3d 261 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 11, 2001

The defendants have not met has the burden of establishing prejudice with their burden of demonstrating prejudice. See specificity. Smith v. New Orleans Fed. … support or advocacy in a legal manner, to- ward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person

United States v. Townsend

31 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1994

This is clearly wrong. I.R.C. § 7201 provides that it is a violation for "any person" to willfully attempt to evade or defeat "any tax." … willfulness. 15 and experience in tax prosecutions qualifies him as an expert.

Jerry Wanzer v. Debra Gloor

691 F. App'x 191 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 22, 2017

evidence does not show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether “prison officials refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly … Because Wanzer has not shown that the defendants infringed his constitutional rights, he concomitantly has not shown that the district court erred by concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Jay Vineyard v. University Health Systems

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 14, 2020

allege a violation of a constitutional right” or “show that the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case.” … Because it is clearly established that “an unjustified delay in surgery is unconstitutional,” Delaughter, 909 F.3d at 138, Vineyard’s claim that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this basis is not frivolous

King v. Katzenbach

360 F.2d 304 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 1966

Deportability on the charge stated in the Order ot Show Cause is established. 3 'The case was previously before us on appeal from an order of the special inquiry officer entered on March 27, 1963, granting voluntary departure … The reports of both houses of Congress specifically note that only the parents of adult United States citizens will be permitted to enter without numerical limitation. 3 Petitioner clearly does not qualify as an 'immediate

Allemang v. State of Louisiana

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

But that uncertainty necessarily means that Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity, because there is no caselaw clearly establishing that Rogers acted unreasonably in arresting Allemang. See Parker v. … In summary, we agree with the district court that Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity, but only because there is no caselaw clearly establishing that he acted unreasonably in proceeding to arrest Allemang for a

Freeman v. County of Bexar

142 F.3d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 1, 1998

These included motions for judgment as a matter of law from Saidler and Jennings predicated on qualified immunity. … First, if Cupit intended to establish a “compelling reasons” test for any purpose, normally the court would have done so in the text of the opinion rather than in an obscure footnote reference.

Herman Harold Thomas v. James A. Lynaugh, Interim Director, Texas Department of Corrections

812 F.2d 225 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 1987

The eyewitness testimony clearly established that Thomas deliberately shot and killed his wife. Thomas’ evidence of self-defense was provided only by himself and was contradicted by the eyewitnesses to the shooting. … The court's charge on provoking the difficulty read as follows: You are instructed that the law qualifies the right of self defense as follows: If a Defendant brings about the necessity of using force against another, by

United States v. Jack Wayne Freeman, Moses Taylor Millis, Keith Allen Keesling, and Clifford Wayne Bennett

660 F.2d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 1981

The wholesale value of the marijuana was approximately $8,000,000. 8 DeWeese testified during the government's case-in-chief pursuant to a court order and a grant of use immunity. … Clearly a member of a three man crew on a long ocean voyage in a small vessel packed with tons of marijuana is different from the passenger in Ferg or the person whose fingerprints were found on envelopes containing drugs

Quigley v. Kimbrough

395 F.2d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 17, 1968

This paragraph, claims the landlord, establishes attorneys’ fees as “rent” under the lease and thus qualifies such fees for priority treatment under Section 64 of *102 the Bankruptcy Act. … assessments which were stipulated as “additional rent” in a paragraph separate from the basic “rent” paragraph in the lease.); In re Uni-Lab, Inc., supra, 180 F.2d at 179-181 (Under Pennsylvania law payments are not “rent” unless clearly

United States v. Richard A. Tonry

837 F.2d 1281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 10, 1988

Tonry’s convictions arise out of his attempts to establish the game of Tri-Zacta Keno in bingo parlors on Indian Reservations. … The Travel Act forbids a person from traveling “in interstate or foreign commerce” with the intent to “otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on

Baughman v. Bowman

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 2025

But “sovereign immunity is jurisdictional,” and “a lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time.” Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Par. … The district court agreed and dismissed the claim with prejudice, concluding that “[w]ithout more, tight handcuffing does not establish a constitutional violation for excessive force.” We agree.

10 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1386, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,320 Jessie Stevenson, Etc. v. International Paper Company, Mobile, Alabama

516 F.2d 103 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 16, 1975

Plaintiffs attack the district court’s conclusions as clearly erroneous factually and as based on incorrect legal analysis. A. Testing Requirements for Maintenance Craft Positions. … scores on the batteries, or the comparative qualifying rate of black and white applicants on the company’s test batteries.

Ray Miller v. Rick Thaler, Director

714 F.3d 897 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 1, 2013

established Federal law.” § 2254(d)(1). … Miller has failed to demonstrate that the state habeas court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, or that it was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts

Richard Douglas v. Matthew DePhillips, et a

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 2018

R. 47.5.4). 6 It was Appellants’ burden to show that the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable because the officers’ conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See Cass v. … Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of their claims based on qualified immunity.

Texas Instruments Incorporated, Cross-Appellant v. United States of America, Cross-Appellee

551 F.2d 599 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 27, 1977

Intangible property, such as patents, copyrights, and subscription lists, does not qualify as section 38 property. … Section 904(a) establishes the alternative limitations on the size of the credit, Section 904(d) establishes a carryback, and carryover provision for that part of the foreign tax credit which taxpayers are not able to utilize