Case law

Leggett v. Duke

279 F. App'x 301 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 22, 2008

Leggett argues correctly, however, that qualified immunity is not a defense to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and that the defendants are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Notwithstanding the lack of these defenses, Leggett has not created a genuine issue of material fact regarding his entitlement to injunctive relief because the summary judgment evidence establishes that the defendants did

United States v. Chedowry Thomas

690 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 2, 2012

The district court did not clearly err in attributing 15 kilograms to Davis. B. … The district court did not clearly err in attributing 15 kilograms to Chapman. VII.

Barry L. Battelstein and Jerry E. Battelstein v. Internal Revenue Service

631 F.2d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 3, 1980

The Battelsteins simply do not qualify. 7 We note further that even were this Court of the opinion that there are, as has been suggested, equitable considerations in this case favoring the Battelsteins, it has long been established … As was cogently observed by the eminent jurist Judge Learned Hand, "a transaction otherwise within an exception of the tax law, does not lose its immunity, because it is actuated by a desire to avoid, or, if one choose, to

United States v. Noble C. Beasley and James H. Finley

513 F.2d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 1975

These declarations must be carefully and clearly limited by the court at the time of their admission and the jury instructed as to such declarations and the limitations put upon them. … Mann has been followed, distinguished, explained and qualified. In view of the posture of the case at this point, we deem it unnecessary to further analyze that case or .the decisions directed to it.

Rios-Valenzuela v. Department of Homeland Security

506 F.3d 393 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 25, 2007

. § 1503(a)(2) clearly deprives the district court of jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.” In his letter brief, Rios indicates that he has raised citizenship as a defense. … First, the case law does not clearly support such a right.

Ramiro Tula Rubio v. Loretta Lynch

787 F.3d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 21, 2015

The use of the term “any,” without qualifying language such as lawful or legal to modify the word “status,” requires us to broadly define the phrase to include aliens admitted in an unlawful status. … Indeed, this structure very clearly indicates that Congress intended to establish two distinct duration requirements—one that demands a period following admission in any status and one that demands a period of residency after

21 Fair empl.prac.cas. 827, 21 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 30,386 Henry Dobbs v. City of Atlanta, Georgia

606 F.2d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 14, 1979

paragraph 12. 4 While it is not clear whether the past discriminatory hiring practices are alleged to have occurred prior to or subsequent to the date cities came within the purview of Title VII (March 1972), the complaint clearly … This established the prima facie statutory violation. The pension plans now under attack are neutral and rational.

J. E. Davant and Kathryn Davant v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. J. E. Davant and Kathryn Davant

366 F.2d 874 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 4, 1966

Such a liquidation reincorporation transaction does not qualify for section 331 treatment. In Helvering v. … sale which transferred earnings] to stockholders in relation to their former holdings, so as to produce, for all practical purposes, the same result as a distribution of cash earnings of equivalent value, cannot obtain tax immunity

Legacy Hsing v. City of Horseshoe Bay

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 2025

Penn Central establishes a deliberately “ad hoc, factual inquir[y],” not a counting exercise. Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124. … Our Simon opinion is not clearly wrong under Texas law.

Ariyan v. Sewerage and Water Board

29 F.4th 226 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 21, 2022

“In the context of a 12(b)(6) motion in a section 1983 suit, the focus should be whether the complaint properly sets forth a claim of a deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution … This failure to specify how amendment would cure the fundamental deficiencies in their pleading, especially when the core of Plaintiffs’ claims is so clearly foreclosed by settled law, supports the district court

United States v. Cecil Eugene Harris, A/K/A "Red" Harris

460 F.2d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 1972

THE AFFIDAVIT UPON WHICH A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED FOR THE SEARCH OF THE GAMBLING CLUB WAS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE. … most ominous statistics turned up by the President’s Crime Commission in their surveys was the estimated $2 billion paid out each year by organized crime to public officials in and out of the criminal justice system to buy immunity

Clarke v. Stalder

121 F.3d 222 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 9, 1997

Another possible explanation is that she was, in a roundabout way, granting a defense motion for qualified immunity. This motion, however, was only filed after the conclusion of the trial. … The defense of qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 , 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1923-24 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980), and must be pleaded like any other such defense. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c).

Continental Oil Company v. Bonanza Corporation and Republic Insurance Company

677 F.2d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 1, 1982

A remand in this case would steer a faulty course, however, because the record is fully developed, and it clearly establishes Conoco’s motives in raising the Aqua Safari. See Avery v. … Even though Bonanza was an independent contractor, Conoco is not necessarily immune from liability.

Cherokee Pump & Equipment Inc. v. Aurora Pump

38 F.3d 246 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1994

It should only be granted if the movant has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four Callaway prerequisites. … As the official comments to Article 3540 note, "only strongly held beliefs of a particular state qualify for the characterization of "public policy.' " Comment (f) to La.Civ.C. art. 3540.

Walter Hunnicutt v. Bennie B. Wright, Jr., Bennie B. Wright, Jr., M.D.

986 F.2d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 1993

The district court dismissed Bolivar on the grounds of governmental immunity, and Baxter settled plaintiff’s claim against it for the sum of $7,500.00. … Defendant asserts that the evidence of plaintiffs incarceration was relevant to establish the reason for the three and one-half month delay between the time of plaintiffs first and second surgeries.

United States v. Joe Allen Bounds

943 F.2d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 1991

Instead, he merely asserted conclusory allegations that are clearly refuted by the record. … We had established that this single omission mandates reversing the defendant’s conviction and vacating the guilty plea.

Phillip Wainscott v. Dallas County, Texas

408 F. App'x 813 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 2011

P. 12(b)(2), (4), (5), and (6) on grounds of improper parties, res judicata or claim preclusion, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and insufficient service of process. … Moreover, the district court did not discuss—much less mention—Defendants’ sovereign immunity and qualified immunity defenses.

Joyce Goolsby, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. W. Michael Blumenthal, as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury

581 F.2d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 4, 1978

The fact that it was believed necessary to include these restrictions for them to have application shows clearly that it was not intended to make other federal acts, such as the Hatch Act, applicable. … applicability of URA beyond that of Davis-Bacon, thus making it necessary to specifically mention Davis-Bacon in order to insure its applicability, but not necessary to mention URA. . 31 U.S.C.A. § 1243 provides: (a) In order to qualify

John H. Maxwell and Vera R. Maxwell v. United States

334 F.2d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 1964

Except for qualifying shares, Mr. Maxwell owned all of the capital stock of Maxwell Steel Company, the business of which had formerly been operated by him as a sole proprietorship. … Taxpayers cannot prevail if the finding that the restoration was ineffective, 3 and without tax significance because of the worthlessness of the note is not clearly erroneous. They rely on the testimony of Mr.

Reinagel v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

735 F.3d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 30, 2013

The Texas Supreme Court has established “a presumption ... that parties contracted for themselves,” which applies “unless it ‘clearly appears’ that they intended a third party to benefit from the contract.” 28 Here, the Reinagels … Bly’s conduct clearly falls within th[e] provision [of the Texas Penal Code that criminalizes forgery]'' (emphasis added). . See Tex. Civ. Pract. & Remedies Code §§ 121.004, 121.007. .