Case law

Henry J. Kirksey, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds County, Mississippi, Defendants

554 F.2d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 1977

Carey, supra, clearly holds that in cases arising under the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 et seq., a state legislature may constitutionally do so. … Then, this court establishes an evidentiary rule and defaults the defend *163 ants for failing to have predicted and followed it.

Custer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.

493 F.3d 626 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2007

(“Murphy”), he was informed that because he was totally disabled his employment would be terminated and he would no longer qualify for coverage under the Group Insurance Plan for Employees of Murphy Oil Corp. … “To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under ERISA, a plaintiff must establish that his employer fired him in retaliation for exercising an ERISA right or to prevent attainment of benefits to which he would have

United States v. J. B. Zarzaur

381 F.2d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 1967

your duty to determine after a fair and impartial consideration of all of the evidence before you in light of the instructions of the court as to the law, whether the Ranch House Club, Inc. was a private membership club, qualified … The operation of the establishment involved violations of the State’s liquor laws.

Meekins v. Thompson

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 2001

a public official pleads the af- firmative defense of qualified immunity in 1 Schultea established the use of a rule 7(a) his answer, the district … Rangers, plaintiff must allege a violation of a “clearly 179 F.3d 360, 365 (5th Cir. 1999) (stating that established constitutional right.”

Terry James v. David Godbey

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 1, 2015

“It is well established that judges enjoy absolute immunity for judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings,” Mays v. Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110 (5th Cir. 1996), and Mr. … As such, because Judge Godbey and Magistrate Judge Kaplan clearly enjoy absolute immunity, Mr. James’s suit is frivolous. Because Mr.

19 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1286, 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9266 F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Airpax Electronics, Inc.

595 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 1979

Neshick was denied the position, it clearly appears that there was no job opening at the time of the interview and, of course, the position did not remain open because it had been previously filled. … Neshick was qualified for the position she was seeking. Thus the Government could not show that age was a determining factor in Ms. Neshick's failure to get the job. See Mastie v.

Batton v. Evers

598 F.3d 169 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

In that instance, of course, our usual standard of review for fact findings—the clearly erroneous standard—would apply. … The IRS asserts that over 2,500 of the withheld pages are immune from disclosure under this exemption.

Ann McLaughlin Secretary of the United States Department of Labor v. Oscar C. Lindemann, Roy A. Herberger, Trustee of the Lee Optical and Associated Companies Pension Plan v. Theodore Shanbaum

853 F.2d 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 9, 1988

Sec. 401 (a)(13), also provides that "[a] trust shall not constitute a qualified trust ... unless the plan of which such trust is a part provides that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated." … would be if the Plan sold it to a third party who could enjoy the tax benefits. 8 It was the district court's prerogative to accept the evaluations of the Secretary's appraisers, and the district court's findings, unless clearly

United States v. Atropine Sulfate 1.0 Mg. (Article of Drug) Dey-Dose, and Dey Laboratories, Inc., Claimant-Appellant

843 F.2d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 3, 1988

Clearly, this is not so. … thing to say that drug “A” may be marketed because a bioequivalent drug, “B,” has previously been approved under the Act, but quite another to say that the studies of non-approved drug “B” are sufficient for all purposes in establishing

Masterson v. Brown

72 F. 136 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 4, 1896

Nor is this substantial admission qualified by this language, used in another subdivision of the grounds of the demurrers: “Because the cause of action, if any, arising out of and from the matters and things stated in said … All of her time and means and energies were being taxed to their uttermost to establish at least probable cause for her averments.

Henderson v. Flemming

283 F.2d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1960

After stating “thus, the issue as stated above is *887 clearly presented,” the Council answered it categorically. … This income was clearly ;self-employment income subject to tax. Since the income was subject to tax, she was eligible for the benefits.

United States v. James C. Gordon

780 F.2d 1165 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 16, 1986

Copeland, entered a guilty plea before trial and executed a “memorandum of understanding” whereby he agreed to testify in exchange for the government recommending lighter treatment and immunization from further prosecution … Moreover, the allegation's of Count one clearly charge Gordon with specific intent to commit the described offense. See United States v.

Reule v. Jackson

114 F.4th 360 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 19, 2024

This argument appears to be based on a conflation of the lack of an Article III case or controversy on the one hand and the availability of judicial immunity, which we do not address, on the other. … Ct. of LA Cnty., 91 F.4th 977, 980–81 (9th Cir. 2024) (“To the extent Wolfe can be read to hold that the Ex parte Young exception allows injunctions against judges acting in their judicial capacity, that conclusion is ‘clearly

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Poole Chemical Co.

419 F.3d 355 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 28, 2005

Likes, 962 S.W.2d 489, 502 (Tex. 1997). 11 Likes, 962 S.W.2d at 502 (discussing a new immunity provision of the Texas Tort Claims Act that prevented the plaintiff from recovering from a municipal defendant even … ——Austin 1999, pet. denied) (deciding that 11 months is a reasonable amount of time to file a request for a refund where a new law established a statute of limitations); but see Alvarado v.

Rewis v. United States

369 F.2d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 5, 1966

Shepherd answered and said, "I qualify the answer, yes, by just one question, and that is, one supposition. … It seems clear that without these qualifying assumptions in the Government's hypothetical case, Dr.

Kamal Patel v. Ronald Thompson

470 F. App'x 240 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 28, 2012

In the summary judgment context, a government official need only plead qualified immunity, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff. See Gates v. Tex. … With respect to the claim that Rangel opened and read an item of his outgoing mail, Patel failed to establish that Rangel’s “allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

Mabry Ex Rel. T.M. v. Lee County

849 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 2017

While taking pains to describe and apply the long- established reasonableness framework of Bell and other Fourth Amendment precedent, the Court in Florence nonetheless set up a high hurdle for inmates challenging the constitutionality … Doe, 742 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2014), but ultimately decided that case on qualified immunity grounds, and so did not make any holding as to whether Florence applies to searches of juveniles.

Keele v. Leyva

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2003

To establish a cognizable claim of excessive force, the plaintiff must demonstrate a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and must establish that the defendant’s conduct was objectively … unreasonable under clearly established law.

Cobb v. Central States, Southwest & Southeast Areas Pension Fund

461 F.3d 632 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 22, 2006

Bruch, 489 lar plaintiff falls within one of the three enu- U.S. 101, 117-18 (1989), which held that “to merated classes of litigants (participants, bene- establish that he or she ‘may become eligible’ … While this Plan option provides the of the three classes of plaintiffs with standing, greatest amount of monthly income, the and we have refused to read the “designation” Plan states clearly

Shearn Moody, Jr. v. United States

783 F.2d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 1986

Moody Bankers, an unincorporated business worth less than $5,000,000, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(2)(B)(ii), and that the district court’s determination to the contrary is clearly erroneous. … Should the court find that Moody qualifies for attorneys’ fees under the EAJA, as amended, then entry of an appropriate award of those fees will also be in order.