Case law

Reyes ex rel. Estate of Ceballos v. City of Plainview

362 F. App'x 423 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 26, 2010

Rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) that the municipal employee violated [the decedent’s] clearly established constitutional rights with subjective deliberate indifference; and (2) that this violation resulted from … The district court explained that, under section 101.025 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the State of Texas has not waived sovereign immunity for intentional acts and that all of the Ceballos Family’s claims

Estate of Shane G v. City of Dallas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2002

“The seco nd prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether … the conduct of the defendants was objectively unreasonable in the light of that then clearly established law.”

Movible Offshore, Inc. v. The M/v Wilken A. Falgout, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., Gulf and South American Steamship Co., Inc.

471 F.2d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 1973

The clearly erroneous test can never be applied with cybernetic certainty. … It is well established that in case of ambiguity, extrinsic aid may be sought in order to settle the meaning of a statute or contract.

Coble v. Quarterman

496 F.3d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 14, 2007

A state court’s incorrect application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent is not enough to warrant federal habeas relief; in addition, such an application must also be unreasonable. Id. at 410-12. … The TCCA’s holding to the contrary was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.

Johnson's Professional Nursing Home v. Weinberger

490 F.2d 841 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 1974

Opelika states the obvious when it asserts that Congress’ intent was to assure that medical services be available, provided and furnished to qualified individuals under the Act. … We are not persuaded that the district court’s conclusion was clearly erroneous.

Bettina Littell v. Houston Independent Sch

894 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2018

For this purpose, municipal entities like the school district qualify as “persons.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). … Applied here, this clearly established law means that Higgins violated the constitutional rights of the twenty-two girls unless Higgins reasonably sus- pected that the missing $50 cash (1) would be found on that particular

United States v. James C. Breckenridge

782 F.2d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 18, 1986

After hearing evidence from the witnesses, the district judge held that the evidence at the suppression hearing failed to establish that Judge Smith properly determined that Officer Alexander’s allegations established probable … Third, Breckenridge asserts that the affidavit does not clearly state which information was obtained from the informant and which came from the informant’s “middleman.”

Housley v. Sheriff, Lipscomb

52 F.3d 1068 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 1995

immunity. … immunity.

The State Of Texas v. United States

730 F.2d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 23, 1984

Section 203 creates a permissible zone of rate flexibility, within which rate increases enjoy a qualified immunity from reasonability challenges. Id. … When Congress seeks to end a situation of conflicting regulatory schemes and to establish uniform regulatory standards, it has clearly manifested its intent to preempt state law. See City of Burbank v.

Florida Peach Growers Ass'n v. United States Department of Labor

489 F.2d 120 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 9, 1974

Clearly, the amended standard, specifically titled as an emergency temporary standard, does not qualify as a permanent standard. … A relatively small number of workers experience these difficulties, and it has been going on during the last several years thus failing to qualify for emergency measures.

Henry T. McMillan v. Escambia County, Florida, Elmer Jenkins v. City of Pensacola

638 F.2d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 19, 1981

Based upon the evidence, this finding of the district court was not clearly erroneous and supported the court’s conclusion. … The School Board An at-large system for electing School Board members was established by state law in 1947. Fla.Stat. §§ 230.08, .10 (1975).

Gary Coffman v. Alvin Community College

642 F. App'x 472 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 6, 2016

Code § 130.0011, enjoys sovereign immunity. The Fourteenth Amendment permits Congress to abrogate that immunity in certain cases, Seminole Tribe of Florida v. … Coffman does not argue that the College President or others involved qualify as policymakers. 4 Similarly, he does not point to any policy established by the College’s Board (which state law establishes as the policymaker

United States v. Merritt

736 F.2d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 1984

Hughes was qualified to render an opinion as to the meaning of the words “Phoenix”, “Dragon”, and “Home Place”. The district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the expert testimony. See United States v. … The district court’s conclusion that the M/V FORTY voluntarily consented to go to the marina is not clearly erroneous.

Banca Pueyo SA v. Lone Star Fund IX

55 F.4th 469 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 13, 2022

Discussion The decisive issue raised by appellants, among a bevy of difficult issues, 4 is whether the district court’s ex parte approval of the § 1782(a) application was immune from adversarial testing. … For instance, appellants’ complaint that the appellee parties to one of the civil Lisbon proceedings are not “interested parties” to the other one, as explained above, clearly implies that discovery pertinent to one

Dcp Farms v. Clayton Yeutter, Secretary of Agriculture, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service

957 F.2d 1183 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 1992

It was clearly not the intent of Congress that such operations would qualify for such vast sums; if this operation does receive the reported $1.4 million, it will only happen because USDA has failed to implement and enforce … The district court relies upon two facts to support its conclusion that the USDA process would be futile because the claim would clearly be rejected.

McKnight v. Alford

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 9, 2001

A state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. … Generally, that a right has not been applied to a given situation does not mean that it is not clearly established for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. See Wooley v.

John and Betty MacGuire v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

450 F.2d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 7, 1971

The burden was on the taxpayers to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this income was derived from a transaction which qualified for long-term capital gain taxation, Helvering v. … Moreover, it is well established that the Tax Court is not bound to believe even uncontradicted testimony of interested parties where the testimony appears highly improbable. Clark v.

United States v. McCree

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 1, 2025

“A factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Jeffries, 587 F.3d at 692 (internal citation omitted). … In Skipper, this court concluded that 2.89 grams of crack cocaine “is not clearly inconsistent with personal use” and “is insufficient to prove intent.” 74 F.3d at 611.

American Trucking Ass'n v. United States

642 F.2d 916 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 17, 1981

The Commission also has issued interim rules establishing procedures for applying for authority to transport government traffic under the new Act. … The applicant’s compliance and fitness are clearly subject to challenge by a competitor in an adjudicatory proceeding. IV.

Ricky Langley v. Howard Prince, Warden

926 F.3d 145 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 6, 2019

It is not enough to say, as the panel did, that the “Ashe doctrine” forms the relevant clearly established law, or that Ashe established the “governing principles.” Langley, 890 F.3d at 516–18. … The Ninth Circuit identified the clearly established law as “the Williams test.” Id. at 658. “The Williams test” referred to Estelle v.