Case law

United States v. Hankins

581 F.2d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 3, 1978

This clearly covered the partnership records in existence prior to the death of Mr. Bewel Hankins on November 19, 1971. … With the fact of non-compliance with the court’s previous order clearly and convincingly established, Hankins’ failure to testify, presumably resting on his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, means that he has failed to

Russell G. Johnson v. Thomas C. Reed, Secretary, United States Air Force, and United States of America

609 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 1980

The district court decision was not clearly erroneous. VI. … The Court of Claims did, however, establish a standard for harmless error to avoid windfall recoveries.

Cunningham v. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government

478 F. App'x 230 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 2012

immunity on behalf of Defendants-Appellees. … Accordingly, there is no merit to Cunningham’s argument that the district court impermissibly raised sua sponte the qualified immunity defense on behalf of the Defendants-Appellees.

Cagle v. McQueen Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Gulf Oil Corp. McQueen v. Cagle. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Cagle

200 F.2d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 19, 1953

Appellant insists that as a matter of law Don- Payte was not a qualified juror under the Texas statute. That statute merely emphasizes the universal rule that a, biased or prejudiced juror is-not competent to serve. … Point No. 3: The court in charging the jury on gioss negligence-necessary to be established as against the defendant, McQueen and Stout, defined gross ncgli-gence as follows : “ ‘Gross negligence’ to be ground for exemplary

United States v. Sid-Mars Restaurant & Lounge, Inc.

644 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2011

The Court is mindful that although it is rare that a federal court will enjoin and stay a state court proceeding, the government’s motion fits squarely within clearly established law on when such a stay is appropriate.” … The form of the remedy did not qualify the right. It rested upon the Fifth Amendment. Statutory recognition was not necessaxy. A promise to pay was not necessary.

United States v. Francisco D. Pineiro, Also Known as Frank Pineiro

377 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 12, 2004

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, based on a consideration of all the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. … As he points out, several circuits have held that a buyer-supplier relationship is insufficient to qualify for the “organizer or leader” sentence enhancement. See United States v.

Thomas Blankenship v. Charles Buenger

653 F. App'x 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 2016

Moreover, we are doubtful that the state law official immunity defense is “clearly inconsistent” with the state action inquiry. … Finally, we reject Blankenship’s reliance on a “joint activity” theory to establish state action.

Jefferson v. Lead Industries Ass'n

106 F.3d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 1997

Letetia JEFFERSON, Individually and as Duly Qualified Legal Tutrix for Schanta Jefferson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. … Hence, the LPLA clearly applies to Jefferson's claims. 12 injuries in order to recover.

Lyndon Property Insurance v. Duke Levy & Associates, LLC

475 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 3, 2007

Breach The district court found that Lyndon failed to establish a breach of a duty to the District by DLA. … The Supreme Court of Mississippi in Mound Bayou clearly stated that the engineer must “adequately” inspect a project before a release of funds is proper. 499 So. 2d at 1359 (upholding the lower court’s finding in favor

Johnson v. Uncle Ben's, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 1992

UBI argued at trial and on appeal that workers qualified to hold jobs in the lower zones of a job category were not necessarily qualified to hold higher jobs in the same category. … This cannot suffice to establish a prima facie case. Wards Cove, 109 S.Ct. at 2124-25.

United States v. State of Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 2025

El Paso does not clearly allege—let alone establish—that 8,000 new people will be detained in county facilities. … Rev. 703, 715–16 (2019) (“To qualify for relief under general principles of equity jurisprudence, the plaintiff normally needed to establish not only that the defendants were behaving unlawfully, but also that their behavior

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.

United States v. State of Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 2025

El Paso does not clearly allege—let alone establish—that 8,000 new people will be detained in county facilities. … Rev. 703, 715–16 (2019) (“To qualify for relief under general principles of equity jurisprudence, the plaintiff normally needed to establish not only that the defendants were behaving unlawfully, but also that their behavior

Sambrano v. United Airlines

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2026

First, United’s grant of a medical accommodation does not establish as a matter of law that any employee had a qualifying disability. … Conclusion When a district court certifies a class, we review that decision only for abuse of discretion.50 And a decision survives that deferential standard “unless it is arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.”51 The

Vernon Cowan v. Joe Corley, Sheriff of Montgomery County, Texas

814 F.2d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 13, 1987

A number identifying the wrecker as a member of the Association will be clearly displayed on each wrecker. 6. … Members of storage facilities not qualifying for approved storage yard may contact [sic], in writing, with an approved owner. 28.

United States v. David Anderton

679 F.2d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 1982

We reversed and remanded his conviction because the trial court failed clearly to advise the jury on the issue of entrapment. … Thus the Pittman conversations did not qualify for the 801(d)(2)(E) exceptions, being hearsay, and were not technically admissible at trial.

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

United States v. Dennis Lee Ullrich

580 F.2d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 1978

Hangar picked out the defendant from the lineup, but she qualified her choice by indicating that she was not certain. 11 After *773 full voir dire examination by the court and counsel, Ms. Hangar left the courtroom. … These cases clearly do not apply in the context of this arrest. Here, there has been no showing that Ullrich protested the impoundment at the time.

Taylor ex rel. Taylor v. St. Clair

685 F.2d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 16, 1982

STATUTORY SCHEME The State of Mississippi participates in Medicaid, a joint federal-state program providing medical assistance to qualified recipients. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1396 . … A qualified provider must abide by these regulations as a condition of participation in the Medicaid Program.

Ernest Faircloth v. Lamb-Grays Harbor Company, Inc., a Corporation

467 F.2d 685 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 1972

In this Circuit’s terms: ‘The expert qualification of a witness is a question for the trial judge, whose discretion is conclusive unless clearly erroneous as a matter of law’. … Under the Alabama rules it is well established that the competency of a witness to testify as an expert is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision on the evidence going to the witness