Case law

Goodley v. Supreme Rice

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 1, 2026

“The original purpose of Section 1061 clearly was to preclude a principal from contracting out ‘the essential economic activities _____________________ 5 Id.; see also Kirkland v. … Louisiana courts strictly construe immunity statutes against the party claiming the immunity, and an employer who wishes to claim tort immunity “bears the burden of proving its entitlement to immunity.” 10 “[E]very presumption

John L. Brewer v. Memphis Publishing Company, Inc., Anita W. Brewer v. Memphis Publishing Company, Inc.

626 F.2d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 2, 1980

Bearing in mind the facts of the present case, we shall briefly trace the evolution of immunity for those who without “malice” print articles that defame public figures, to determine whether this defendant is entitled to … This article clearly made statements that purported to be facts, not opinions.

Dale v. Holder

610 F.3d 294 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 24, 2010

It is well-established that “[j]udicial review of a final removal order is available only if the applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies as of right.” Carranza-de Salinas v. … The substitution of reliance theories did not impact jurisdiction because “the BIA clearly had the opportunity to address her [broader] claim that actual reliance by an alien on the continued availability of § 212(c) relief

Anderson Brothers Corporation v. Robert W. O'meara, Robert W. O'Meara v. Anderson Brothers Corporation

306 F.2d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 14, 1962

There is a conflict in the evidence on the question of the appellant’s knowledge of the appellee’s intended use, and it cannot be held that the district court’s finding is clearly erroneous. Smith v. … Had he sent a qualified person, such as the naval architect whom he later employed, to inspect the dredge he would have learned that it was not what he wanted, or had even made inquiry, he would have been informed as to the

Prince McCoy v. J. Esquivel

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2020

But when, as here, a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense against a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff has the burden of “establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the [defendant’s] allegedly wrongful conduct violated … ” a clearly established constitutional right.

Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries Inc. v. Hood

235 F.3d 908 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 11, 2000

Therefore, inasmuch as the 7% reduction qualifies as an uncompensated cost, the reduced rates would continue to account for the special situation of DSHs. … Rights of Action Under § 1983 to Remedy Violations of a Federal Statute 56 Section 1983 affords a cause of action to a plaintiff against anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person "of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Kelley v. Price-Macemon, Inc.

992 F.2d 1408 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 11, 1993

As the moving party, Industrial bears the initial burden of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. … For example, a non-manufacturer seller who holds a product out to the public as his own, or who qualifies as a "professional vendor," may be held to the same standard as a manufacturer. See Chappuis v.

Skidmore v. Grueninger

506 F.2d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 20, 1975

Turning now to the exhibit, the evidence establishes that there was a lantern burning at the outermost downstream corner of OR-937 (* on exhibit), but the evidence neither establishes nor refutes the existence of a lantern … Absent evidence that she was qualified to operate the boat, she cannot be faulted with failure to do so if it were otherwise possible for her to assume the controls.

Randall G. Dueringer v. General American Life Insurance Company

842 F.2d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 1988

It is undisputed that because Dueringer had been removed from the group policy in May 1983, the only coverage for which he possibly qualified was under the extended benefits provision, which allowed for payment of medical … First, preemption in this case clearly involves a choice-of-law question and therefore must be asserted as an affirmative defense. See Johnson, 813 F.2d at 1043-44 ; Gilchrist, 803 F.2d at 1497 .

Ruth Parks, Individually and for All Others Similarly Situated v. Richard Harden, Individually and as the Commissioner of the Department Ofhuman Resources, Mrs. Alice L. Harris and Mrs. Mary E. Hood, Individually, on Behalf of Theirunborn Children, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare, Etc.

504 F.2d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 4, 1975

Smith establishes that, at least in the absence of congressional authorization for the exclusion clearly evidenced from the Social Security Act or its legislative history, a state eligibility standard that excludes persons … The supreme Court has, therefore, established a two-step standard by which any state exclusion may be judged.

CMS Industries, Inc. v. L. P. S. International, Ltd.

643 F.2d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 1981

had. (2) The Unrecorded Agreement The legal effect of the unrecorded agreement between SEE and Stoplifter is strenuously argued, SEE urging that the effect was to transfer the right to 3M’s royalties back to itself, thus immunizing … Moreover, whatever may have been the sufficiency of Whitaker’s objections, the district court may, on its own motion and without abuse of discretion, properly refuse to credit an affidavit clearly defective on its face.

United States v. Jon-T Chemicals, Inc., and Lewis M. Overton, Jr., Receiver for Jon-T Chemicals, Inc.

768 F.2d 686 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 1985

Chemicals initially invested $1,000 to establish Farms, but later raised this investment to $10,000. … Under the Upland Cotton Program, it was obligated to subsidize applicants who purportedly qualified. 7 U.S.C. § 1444 (e).

Hopwood v. State of Texas

236 F.3d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

None of the Plaintiffs qualified for inclusion in Group C or Group D. … Dean Hamilton’s vote for Hopwood clearly was not cast in the belief that Hopwood was academically more qualified than other applicants based on the system’s criteria of LSAT score, college academic record, personal statement

United States v. Juan Martinez-Lugo

782 F.3d 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 27, 2015

The charging documents presented to the district court established that Martinez-Lugo pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and was sentenced to serve three years in confinement and two years on … Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 707 (5th Cir.2002) (“[The definition of ‘drug trafficking offense’ in § 2L1.2] clearly excludes simple possession of a controlled substance.”)).

Adams v. All Coast

15 F.4th 365 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 30, 2021

Yet the work of handling that cargo does not qualify as seaman’s work. … If that were so then all loading and unloading would qualify as seaman’s work. Yet the regulation says the opposite.

Rodger Hughes v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., et

478 F. App'x 167 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 1, 2012

Second, Hughes clearly disputes the lawfulness of the Defendants-Appellees’ withholding of his wages pursuant to an administrative levy. … Finally, it clearly would not disturb the balance of federal and state judicial power for a federal court to decide questions of federal tax law.

Lave v. Dretke

416 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

Under the framework established by the Supreme Court in Teague v. … In support, he cites to the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford and argues that "[w]ith Crawford-applied e.g. as an `old rule' not clearly recognized but binding at the time of Lave's trial-this is all the more obvious."

Gonzalez v. CoreCivic

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 20, 2021

CoreCivic is clearly an entity covered by the term “whoever.” … It has clearly “obtain[ed]” the labor of these alien detainees.

United States v. Abbott

87 F.4th 616 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 1, 2023

But bank-to-bank traffic alone has never established navigability. … The district court clearly erred in finding navigability on this ground.

Jessie Hoffman v. Burl Cain, Warden

752 F.3d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 12, 2014

established federal law. … In deciding that no Strickland error occurred, the state court decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.