Case law

United States v. Matthew Simpson

796 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 12, 2015

Simpson does not argue that dictionary attacks do not qualify as “improper means” under the enhancement. … Simpson has not established that he was punished for exercising his right to a trial.

James v. Larcom

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2023

The Travis County order clearly distinguished between “employees” and “customers.” … Since James did not establish a constitutional violation, the district court correctly dismissed James’ claims against Jiles and Larcom in their personal capacities on qualified-immunity grounds, see Benfield v.

Chris Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank

805 F.3d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 2015

The relevant statute allows agreements that prohibit soliciting “the established customers of the former employer.” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 219A. … The district court’s reasoning persuades us at least that Prosperity has not shown a substantial likelihood of establishing that the noncompetition agreement qualifies for the goodwill exception, which is the extent of our

John Boyd v. James S. Roland

789 F.2d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 1986

We interpret the district court's conclusion as agreeing with appellants that the neighborhood qualifies for listing in the National Register, which finding is supported by the record. … The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under sections 470i to 470v of this title a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking. 16

Perusahaan Umum Listrik Negara Pusat v. M/v Tel Aviv, Etc.

711 F.2d 1231 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 1983

Defendant had been amenable to suit in New York solely because it was qualified to do business and had designated officials to receive service of process there. … It is ironic, 9 therefore, that appellants argue before us that in rem admiralty actions present a special exception virtually immune from forum non conveniens dismissals.

Plaquemines Parish v. BP America Prod

103 F.4th 324 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 29, 2024

Both drivers were clearly acting in the scope of their federal duties. … Here, Shell and Chevron assert “immunity, preemption, and due process” as their colorable federal defenses. Plaquemines (23-30294) Blue Br. at 48; Cameron (23-30422) Blue Br. at 43.

United States v. Carlos Urbina-Fuentes

900 F.3d 687 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 2018

Entry onto the curtilage is, for the purposes of the burglary statute, entry into the structure or dwelling.” 36 The Florida Supreme Court has thus clearly signaled that burglary of a curtilage represents just one possible … In fact, the Fourth Circuit decision that the Reyes-Ochoa court relied on to establish plain error was also involved in de novo review. See Castendet-Lewis v.

Deaton v. Commissioner

440 F.3d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 9, 2006

. § 1.6081-4(b) (1993) (“[A]ny automatic extension of time for filing an individual income tax return . . . shall not operate to extend the time for payment of any tax due on such return.”).1 To qualify … As discussed 17 above, Baral abrogated the rule established in Mercantile National Bank.

Bennett v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest

890 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 2018

Item Two of the Declarations states that the policy covers "any 'auto,' " the truck involved in the accident is clearly covered. … That the insurance policy unambiguously provides coverage and establishes the intent of the contract parties obviates the need to establish the intent of the contracting parties and, further, the need to take judicial notice

United States v. Michael Maes

961 F.3d 366 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 1, 2020

The court then rejected Maes’s arguments that the proposed testimony was not hearsay and that it qualified for the admission against a party opponent exception. … Maes has failed to establish any of the four necessary elements to succeed on this challenge.

Maldonado v. Thaler

625 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 2010

of significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, although the low end of the confidence band for these scores could potentially qualify. … Puente agreed did not, by itself, qualify Maldonado for a diagnosis of mental retardation. Dr. Puente’s administration of the CTONI yielded an IQ score of 61.

Douglas v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co.

144 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 18, 1998

We thus assume, for the purposes of this opinion, that Douglas’s Response qualifies as opposition activity. … We noted that Jefferies’s conduct was clearly unreasonable in the light of the circumstances and her employer legitimately discharged her because of it. Id.

Llewyn J. Cowart v. Edward Hargett, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary

16 F.3d 642 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 26, 1994

A delay of less than one year will rarely qualify as “presumptively prejudicial” for purposes of triggering the Barker inquiry. See Doggett v. … Under the circumstances, Cowart has not established a violation of his right to a speedy trial.

United States v. Regino Palacios

556 F.2d 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 1977

The government finally urges that the conspiracy was clearly established by proof that the Chicago address was in appellant’s handwriting. … We are unwilling to make the determination that the circumstances at Palacios’ trial qualified Garcia’s pre-trial statement as an exception.

Pastorek v. Trail

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 2001

A public official loses qualified immunity when (1) his actions violate a constitutional right, (2) that was clearly established at the time of the violation, and (3) his conduct was objectively unreasonable. … Both Trail and Elkins are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any of appellant’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Stripling v. Jordan Production Co.

234 F.3d 863 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 29, 2000

We conclude that the magistrate judge’s order did not qualify as a final judgment, such that it would provide a preclusive collateral estoppel effect. See Alpine View Co. v. … The district court upheld this conclusion, stating that it was not clearly erroneous. Stripling argues that under the considerations of Federal Rule of Procedure 15(a), 12 Guardian should have been joined as a party.

Yarbrough v. City of Sanger

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 2002

Nevertheless, this court retains jurisdiction to determine as a matter of law whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, after accepting all of the plaintiff’s factual allegations … as true, by determining whether these facts show that the defendants’ conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law.

Paredes v. Quarterman

574 F.3d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 6, 2009

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). … Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), sets forth the “clearly established federal law” for Paredes’s ineffective-assistance claims: Paredes must show that counsel was deficient and that the deficient

Maranda ODonnell v. Harris County, Texas, e

892 F.3d 147 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 1, 2018

Texas law explicitly establishes that the Judges are “county officers,” TEX. CONST. art. … The court’s factual findings (which are not clearly erroneous) demonstrate that secured bail orders are imposed almost automatically on indigent arrestees.

Dubaz v. Johnson Control

163 F.3d 1357 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1998

In a reduction of work force case, a prima facie case is established if: (1) plaintiff is a member of a protected group; (2) she was adversely affected by the employer’s decision; (3) she was qualified to assume another … Dubaz did engage in protected activity under Title VII when she offered deposition testimony in the Bush lawsuit and her termination clearly qualifies as adverse employment action.