Case law

Coulter v. Texaco, Inc.

117 F.3d 909 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 29, 1997

performed by the contractor on behalf of the principal or (2) the principal retains operational control over the contractor's acts or expressly or impliedly authorizes those acts.3 In this case, Dual's actions clearly … Accordingly, we conclude that Dual 25 cannot qualify as a component part of Texaco's platform under the second paragraph of Article 466.

McAx Sign Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

576 F.2d 62 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 1978

In the quoted finding, the administrative law judge omitted the key qualifier “unequivocal”, suggesting, at first glance, that he may have applied an erroneous legal standard. … Van Eerden is thus clearly distinguishable from the instant case. .

J. L. Carroll and Texas Employers' Insurance Association, Intervenor v. Magnolia Petroleum Company and Sill & Hall

223 F.2d 657 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 20, 1955

However, we believe the record, as illustrated by the colloquy quoted in the footnote, clearly reveals that counsel for all parties and the trial court failed to bear in mind the true purpose and scope of expert testimony … The second specification of error arose when, several times during the course of the trial, counsel for appellees sought to establish a prevailing custom in the oil fields to the effect that the acceptance of a derrick by

Allison v. Roberts

960 F.2d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 12, 1992

the misrepresentations be of past or current acts; a promise to perform acts in the future is not considered a qualifying misrepresentation merely because the promise subsequently is breached. … Grogan overruled this court and other federal appellate courts by holding that creditors need only establish fraud by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence.

James Wetherbe v. Texas Tech University System, et

699 F. App'x 297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 2017

However, in order to establish a First Amendment claim based on such speech, a public employee must first “establish that his speech involves a matter of public concern.” United States Dep’t of Justice v. Fed. … On appeal, Defendants argue that sovereign immunity bars all claims against TTU.

United States v. United Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company

410 F.2d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 1969

Clearly, Standard’s motion to inspect was of an ancillary nature, and this Court therefore has jurisdiction. Cf. also Olympic Refining Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260 (9th Cir. 1964). … Because of Judge Lynne’s detailed knowledge of the record and complexities and peculiarities of the banana industry gleaned from his more than twelve years of conscientious supervision of this case, he was particularly well qualified

Danyal Shaikh v. Texas A&M Univ Clge of Medc, et a

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 2018

The pituitary tumor that afflicted Shaikh is clearly a “physical impairment.” … Even if Shaikh could establish that he had or was regarded as having had a cognizable disability, he fails to plausibly allege that he was otherwise qualified or that he requested and was refused reasonable accommodations

Monique Fraser v. Patrick O'Connor & Associ

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 7, 2020

A factual finding is clearly erroneous only if, “based upon the entire record, we are ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” S. Travel Club, Inc. v. … With respect to the underlying facts, the employer has the burden of establishing that an exemption applies by a preponderance of the evidence. Meza v. Intelligent Mexican Mktg., Inc., 720 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 2013).

United States v. Lawrence W. Kerley

643 F.2d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 1981

After reading the indictment and Section 242, the nearest the court came to instructing the jury on “willfulness” was as follows: Finally, the evidence must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant knew that the … That element was clearly a crucial consideration of the jury in its deliberations.

Curtis R. Blair v. Page Aircraft Maintenance, Inc.

467 F.2d 815 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 1, 1972

With deference, it would “disembowel” the Act if this Court were to hold that the Department of Justice, contrary to the law applied to other litigants, may ignore the limitations clearly applicable under the Act as Congress … from such training and service or from hospi *817 talization continuing after discharge for a j)eriod of not more than one year— (B) if such position was in the employ of a private employer, such person shall— (i) if still qualified

Jamar Osborne v. Travis County

638 F. App'x 290 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 8, 2016

Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir. 1999) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields a state official from personal liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the official’s exercise of discretionary authority results … Because the district court’s order did not make clearly erroneous factual findings or errors of law, we AFFIRM. See In re ProEducation Int’l, 587 F.3d at 299. AFFIRMED. 8

Campbell Taggart, Inc. v. United States

744 F.2d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 1984

We see no principled reason, however, for exempting holding and investment companies from the established rule that expenditures for the protection of existing goodwill are currently deductible. 35 Clearly, had CTI made direct … though the parent cannot establish any direct benefit to its business.

United States v. Frank Landry

903 F.2d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 1990

Landry’s wallet was found in this bag, and the contents of the wallet clearly support the conclusion that the wallet belonged to Landry. … The present case, however, is clearly distinguishable from Diaz-Villafane because the involvement of the minor here was the only ground for the upward departure.

Marta Carbonell v. Louisiana Dept. Of Health & Human Resources, Secretary of the Louisiana Dept. Of Health & Human Resources

772 F.2d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 3, 1985

Reaching and reviewing the magistrate’s adoptive findings in light of this evidence, we find no clearly erroneous factual finding. … We find and conclude that Carbonell has failed to establish the discrimination charged. Her Title VII complaint is without merit.

Marcello v. Ahrens

212 F.2d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 25, 1954

It conceded arguendo that the alien could establish an “ ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ case” and his “good moral character” and that he would be able to establish all of the requirements essential to the invocation … “The term ‘special inquiry officer’ means any immigration officer who the Attor-noy General deems specially qualified to conduct specified classes of proceedings, in whole or in part, required by this chapter to bo conducted

Mathai v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College

551 F. App'x 101 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 2013

Nelson in his individual capacity was dismissed based upon qualified immunity, a matter also wholly unaddressed by Mathai in her opening brief. The breach of contract claim against Dr. … Prior to her dismissal, Mathai never contested the grounds underlying the two contracts, the second of which clearly stated that immediate dismissal would be the result of a failure to comply.

United States v. Investment Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A Great Western Litho & Bindery, Donald P. Browning, California Publishers Liquidating Corporation, Michael Warner, Video Team, Inc. And Susan C. Colvin, United States of America v. California Publishers Liquidating Corp., Video Team, Inc., Donald P. Browning, and Michael Warner

10 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 1994

pursuant to Sec. 5E1.4 qualifies as a "sentence imposed pursuant to section 3551" and thus its review would be governed by Sec. 3742. … No such qualifying language appears in the language of the statutory provision.

Harris v. The City of Houston

151 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 12, 1998

. *189 Their claims regarding the allegedly discriminatory purpose and impact of the annexation, styled under the Voting Rights Act as well as the Fifteenth Amendment, are therefore not before us. 3 II “To qualify as a case … Harris also argues that his constitutional claims fall within the "capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine because “[sjome possibility clearly exists that the City would implement future

Herbert M. Yielding v. Crockett Independent School District

707 F.2d 196 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 1983

either within or without them, so clearly so that the trial judge cannot have been in doubt. … Other portions of it treat of jurisdiction, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and other questions presented. 8 . We assume that the Court did not treat of the obscene gesture since it, like Mr.

Dameware Development, L.L.C. v. American General Life Insurance

688 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 19, 2012

In 2003, Joseph Vizzini, Dameware’s financial advisor, attended a presentation about the use of American General financial products to establish a pension plan that qualified for favorable tax treatment pursuant to section … Dameware maintains that its cause for entering into the contract was to establish a 412(I) Plan, and that its inability to establish a 412(I) Plan constitutes an error concerning cause.