Case law

Cornelius Wilson v. Dennis Grimes

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 2019

immunity. … Because Wilson fails to brief whether Singh, Young, and Comeaux were correctly dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity, he has waived his challenge to that determination. See Am. States Ins. Co. v.

Patin v. Allied Signal, Inc.

69 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 28, 1995

that a covered employee's claims and the claims of those asserting rights through the employee against the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing are not immunized … in the first suit." 31 29 The Patins dispute neither that rule nor its applicability in federal court; instead, they insist that Patin's attempt to amend his pleadings in the employment discrimination suit against Allied immunizes

Colonial Stores Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

450 F.2d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 22, 1971

Clearly it does. … the circumstances clearly enough to provide reliable testimony.

Tammie Wade v. Megan Brennan

647 F. App'x 412 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 2, 2016

Establishing a prima facie case thus requires that Wade show she is qualified for her job. See Melton v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 391 F.3d 669, 676 n.8 (5th Cir. 2004). … That finding of fact regarding the scope of the stipulation and the order was not clearly erroneous.

Wood Grp. Prod. Servs. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

930 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 22, 2019

None of the facts was disputed, and the only question was whether Malta was qualified to recover under the Act. … The court concluded that the "[o]re at this stage is clearly no longer being 'unloaded' from a vessel in any sense of the word." Id.

Chacko v. Texas A & M

149 F.3d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 1998

not central to the matter of qualified immunity.2 We assess the defense of qualified immunity in a two-step process. … is clearly established.

Isaac E. Davis, III v. Wallace E. Mann, Etc.

882 F.2d 967 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 1989

Five members of the dental and medical professions — so far as the record shows, all well respected and qualified — served as committee members. 11 Davis had counsel present. … To establish a denial of procedural due process, Davis must show substantial prejudice. Keough, 748 F.2d at 1083 ; U.S. Pipe & Foundry v. Webb, 595 F.2d 264 , 274 (5th Cir.1979).

Wheat v. Johnson

238 F.3d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 5, 2001

Our determination requires deference to the state habeas court’s adjudication of Wheat’s claims on the merits, unless that adjudication: (1) “was contrary t o, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … Wheat’s argument regarding the alleged improper exclusion of expert testimony that Wheat would probably not live long enough to qualify for parole is also procedurally barred.

28 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1212, 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,647 Willie Mae Payne, Etc., Cross-Appellants v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc. And Baxter Laboratories, Inc., Defendants- Cross-Appellees

673 F.2d 798 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 1982

In 1972 to 1974, Travenol hired 26.1% of the qualified white applicants while hiring 21.5% of the qualified black applicants. 34 The record contains no applicant flow statistics for the period between 1974 and 1976, although … Applicant flow figures are more revealing of an employer's hiring practices than general population comparisons when, as here, a greater percentage of qualified blacks apply for work than qualified whites.

United States v. Johnson

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 26, 2023

Establishing that it affected Johnson’s substantial rights requires showing that “there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different but for the error.” United States v. … Johnson’s motion noted that “[t]hese statements are also inadmissible hearsay that do not qualify under a hearsay exception as to codefendant[] Johnson . . . .”

Bank of Louisiana v. Aetna US Healthcare Inc.

459 F.3d 610 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 4, 2006

The Supreme Court has “observed repeatedly that this broadly worded provision is ‘clearly expansive.’ ” Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141, 146 , 121 S.Ct. 1322 , 149 L.Ed.2d 264 (2001) (quoting N.Y. … The parties do not dispute that this qualifies as an ERISA plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (1) (defining employee welfare benefit plans subject to ERISA). .

Montoya v. City of Brownsville

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 30, 1999

First, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity when a plaintiff has failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Id. … Second, a defense of qualified immunity will succeed if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable at the time in light of clearly established law. Id.

United States v. Vargas

21 F.4th 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 23, 2021

calculations under the Sentencing Guidelines for clear error and that court’s calculation methodology de novo.”4 Vargas failed to object to the method of loss calculation, so our review is for plain error.5 To establish … Our caselaw does not clearly explain the relationship between the general rule and the government-benefits rule.

Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co. v. Rapides Healthcare System

461 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2006

obligated to reimburse the individual or to pay for him or on his behalf the charges for the services rendered by the hospital shall pay those benefits to the individual when the itemized statement submitted to such entity clearly … participant or beneficiary “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.” 30 This section “clearly

Sohyde Drilling & Marine Co. v. Coastal States Gas Producing Co.

644 F.2d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 14, 1981

Although recovery for damages of this kind was seemingly barred under the established rule of maritime law enunciated in Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. … Notwithstanding that two statutes contain substantially similar definitions of the term vessel, what may reasonably qualify as a “vessel” for the purpose of one statute might well thwart the purpose of the other statute.

Mary Carter Paint Co. v. Federal Trade Commission

333 F.2d 654 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 1964

Although Mary Carter's offer of the 'free paint' is contingent on the purchase of a quart or a gallon, Mary Carter does not either (1) increase 'the ordinary and usual price' or (2) reduce 'the qualify'; or (3) reduce 'the … quantity or size of the article of merchandise' which the customer is required to purchase. 31 Nevertheless, the Commission now holds that Mary Carter may not do what the Commission's two pronouncements clearly permit. 32

Ahrens v. Perot Systems Corp.

205 F.3d 831 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 2000

“Most courts have identified at least two limitations on the application of the doctrine: (1) it may be applied only where the position of the party to be estopped is clearly inconsistent with its previous one … For each action, she gave a glaringly inconsistent, all-encompassing, non-qualified response.

Private Michael Leonard Helwick v. Melvin Laird as Secretary of Defense

438 F.2d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 1971

It is well established that one need not accept formal religion or be a member of an established church in order to qualify as a conscientious objector. See Welsh v. … Thus the fact that one lacks sufficient insight or knowledge to express his beliefs clearly does not detract from the strength and validity of his beliefs. Gann v. Wilson, N.D.Cal.1968, 289 F.Supp. 191, 194 .

William D. Hammons, Jerome Alexander Durning and William D. Hammons, III v. Oscar Adams

783 F.2d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 11, 1986

The Rules require the local union to establish and maintain a non-discriminatory registry for qualified boilermakers and state the manner in which union members must register for work and be referred to jobs. … Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks 21 clearly established that there was a procedure whereby the employee-union member could appeal the union inaction on his grievance, and the union had notified the member in writing

Charles Bolton v. Jerome McDuffie

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 2019

Although the AG’s or a designee’s certification conclusively establishes removal jurisdiction, § 2679(d)(2); Gutierrez de Martinez v. … “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 should