Case law

Lola Burton, as Administratrix of the Estate of William C. Burton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

335 F.2d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 11, 1964

Burton, deceased,” although sued as such was not the duly appointed and legally qualified administratrix of the Assured’s estate at the time the State Court third-party suits were instituted and when the judgments in those … The record therefore establishes as a matter of law that the Insurer had the duty to aet. it did not.

United States v. Tompkins

130 F.3d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 1, 1997

The Keohane court held that, for purposes of federal habeas corpus proceedings, the issue whether a suspect is “in custody,” and therefore entitled to Miranda warnings, is a mixed question of law and fact qualifying for independent … White,23 in which we held that the district court’s voluntariness finding was not clearly erroneous when the investigating agent, in requesting the defendant’s consent to search, explained that he could not automatically

Justiss Oil Co. v. Kerr-McGee Refining Corp.

75 F.3d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 28, 1996

The trial record establishes, however, that at no time during the job did the Justiss crew request additional monitoring. See, e.g., 25 R. at 87-88. … Jacobus has qualified as an expert in over twenty (20) states and in several federal courts, including the Western District of Louisiana.

Maxmed Healthcare, Inc. v. Thomas Price

860 F.3d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 22, 2017

A Qualified Independent Contractor, another private contractor, conducts the “independent” reconsideration. Id. § 405.968. … “[A] motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) ‘must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence’ and ‘cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and

United States v. Wells

262 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 2001

We determined that such evidence was clearly inadmissible and constituted reversible error. … Clearly, this is sufficient evidence to support Loletta’s convictions–-but that is not the question.

H.B. Zachry Co. v. Quinones

206 F.3d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 8, 2000

All parties agree that the room and board provided to Quinones in this case qualified as ' 119 Meals and Lodging. The only question before us then is the proper construction of ' 902(13). 11 Relying on Guthrie v. … The ALJ then concluded that working conditions existed that could have caused the injury: 28 While a specific instance of injury has not been clearly established since, on multiple occasions, Claimant has stated he did not

Troy Clark v. Rick Thaler, Director

673 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 2012

Because the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law on the record before it, we affirm. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 (2000) (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’”). 25

John R. Thompson Co., Doing Business as and Through Its Wholly Owned Subsidiaries Holloway House, Inc. v. Mrs. Lee Holloway, Sr.

366 F.2d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 7, 1966

There is support for its findings and they cannot now be set aside as clearly erroneous. 7 II. … He undertook to qualify that earlier testimony by inconsistently testifying that he nonetheless would not feel the concurrent use of the marks “confusing.”

Joe Cephas Singleton v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

492 F.2d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 12, 1974

The threshold requirement for establishment of a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection is a showing of marked disparity between the percentage of Negroes among persons putatively qualified to serve as … Of the nine Negroes remaining on the panel from which appellant’s petit jury was selected, five were excused for cause — by whom and for what reason the record does not clearly indicate— and four were challenged by the State

Lakeland Lounge of Jackson, Inc. v. City of Jackson, Mississippi

973 F.2d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 4, 1992

This finding is manifestly not clearly erroneous. Although the court makes one reference to macroeconomics, which was discussed in the vacated portion of Woodall v. … Also, no adult entertainment establishment could be located within 250 feet of any other such use.

United States v. Vu Anh Le

512 F.3d 128 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2007

to the original instructions.2 (1) Impermissibly government-favored supplemental instructions 2 Le asserts vaguely that the supplemental instructions contained misstatements of the law, but he does not clearly … Such a conviction qualifies as a “controlled substance offense” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). See United States v. Ford, No. 06-21042, 2007 WL 4303800, at *3–4 (5th Cir.

Leslie Hendershot v. Dustin Slovacek

709 F. App'x 250 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2017

The district court dismissed the claims against the officers in their individual capacities pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, Hendershot had to show a genuine dispute as to whether the officers “violate[d] clearly established law.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.

United States v. Richard Elam

930 F.3d 406 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2019

“A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v. … Liberally construed, that is enough to qualify Elam’s motion as a § 2255 motion. “[T]he interests of justice require the district court to further consider the matter . . . .” Id.

Norton v. House of Mercy of New York

101 F. 382 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 1900

The question, then, to be considered is whether the principles of law, so clearly and repeatedly announced by the courts, apply to the facts of this case. … “It is a principle firmly established,” said the supreme court in De Vaughn v. Hutchinson, 165 U. S. 570 , 17 Sup. Ct. 461, 41 L.

American MacHinery Corporation, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross

424 F.2d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 1970

The Court stated: It was clearly error to hold that the right of the strikers to reinstatement expired on August 20, when they first applied. … If and when a job for which the striker is qualified becomes available, he is entitled to an offer of reinstatement.

Carter v. United States

135 F.2d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 1943

The contempt proceeding was clearly a civil one, and the order held to be unlawful was a direct violation of the Constitution. … Jurisdiction vel non, as finally established, is not a safe or clear guide in all cases of contempt. Thus United States v.

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 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.

prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 11,408 Celina Lynette Goode and Thomas Eugene Goode, Cross-Appellants v. Herman Miller, Inc., Cross-Appellee

811 F.2d 866 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 1987

Again, we cannot say that this finding was clearly erroneous. … Madison, a mechanical engineer at Haag Engineering who worked on the report with Jackson, would qualify as an expert in the field of failure and damage consultation.

Kenneth Granviel v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections

655 F.2d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 11, 1981

The Supreme Court established in Wainwright v. … ‘[A]ppoint disinterested qualified ex *681 perts to examine the defendant . . clearly means that such expert is not appointed by the court as the expert of the State or the defense, but is the court’s disinterested expert

Raul C. Montalvo v. Tower Life Building and Tower Life Insurance Company

426 F.2d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 1970

The plaintiffs, by producing the original *1149 document, established clearly that their intent in signing their names had been to evidence their consent to becoming parties plaintiff to an action under the Fair Labor Standards … A trial court has firsthand knowledge of the proceedings before it and is thus clearly qualified to “place a value on [the attorney’s] services without opinion evidence of an expert witness on the subject.”