Case law

Consolidated Co Inc v. Union Pacific RR Co

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 2007

Conco alleges, and the district court itself found, that pollutants and hazardous waste are located throughout the entire former railroad site, clearly qualifying it as a “pollution source” under § 2004(13). … These facts qualify the former site as a “facility” under § 2004(14)(b) and (c).

Mid-Louisiana Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Consolidated Gas Supply Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

664 F.2d 530 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 23, 1981

However, this general definition is subject to a qualified exception which is crucial to the issue presented here. … Relying on the language, purposes and history of the NGPA, we hold that Congress clearly intended for any production attributable to an “interstate pipeline, intrastate pipeline or local distribution com-, pany, or any affiliate

Harris v. Kirby

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 1998

immunity. … The allegations of Appellee’s complaint, presumptively supported by sufficient evidence, demonstrate a violation of his clearly established constitutional rights.

United States v. Henderson

646 F.3d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2011

The Supreme Court established in Johnson v. … The Supreme Court’s decision in Tapia establishes that at the time of appeal, the district court’s error was plain.

Letetia Jefferson v. Lead Industries Association, Inc.

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

(CCH) P 14,882 Letetia JEFFERSON, Individually and as Duly Qualified Legal Tutrix for Schanta Jefferson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. … Hence, the LPLA clearly applies to Jefferson's claims 15 The same is true if the claim were for negligent misrepresentation. See Abbott v. Equity Group, Inc., 2 F.3d 613 , 624 n. 38 (5th Cir.1993)

Nitram, Inc. v. Motor Vessel Cretan Life

599 F.2d 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 3, 1979

We are, of course, bound by the trial court’s findings unless we find them to be clearly erroneous. … We reject any suggestion that this finding is clearly erroneous.

Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Brown Equipment and Service Tools, Inc.

666 F.2d 148 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 21, 1982

That precept applies to Belo plans, which qualify the Act’s overtime provisions. … of the statute and (2) the rate of pay specified in the contract did not qualify as a regular rate.

General Finance Corp. v. Sprouse

577 F.2d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 7, 1978

The defendant, Rohm and Haas, presented well-qualified experts who pointed to several possible causes, including exposure to IBA, but who could not point to a specific causative agent. … Hence,, the trial court’s finding is not clearly erroneous.

Ncnb Texas National Bank v. Candice Beth Cowden and Billi Terresa Cowden

895 F.2d 1488 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 26, 1990

The Supreme Court has clearly established that state law is pre-empted to the extent it conflicts with federal law. See *1495 California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. … At the time the transfers that provoked this litigation took place, the statute provided in part: (1) Establishment.

Wilfred Academy of Hair and Beauty Culture, Houston, Texas v. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

957 F.2d 210 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 6, 1992

The trial court granted declaratory and injunctive relief in the farm workers’ favor but found that the state was immune from paying attorney’s fees. … The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that: Clearly a controversy exists between the farm workers and TEC.

Can-Am International, LLC v. Republic of Trinidad & Tobago

169 F. App'x 396 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 1, 2006

The party claiming FSIA immunity must establish a prima facie case that it satisfies FSIA’s definition of a foreign state, thereby creating a presumption of immunity. United States v. … First, there is a question as to whether Sorsby’s acts in the United States qualify as “commercial activities.”

Krieser Ex Rel. Krieser v. Hobbs

166 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 28, 1999

Nothing in this section shall be construed, in any way, to alter the immunity of any person. MISS. CODE ANN. § 85-5-7. … See Wells, 659 So. 2d at 25 (“clearly the majority rule”).2 2 Indeed, regarding the pro-tanto approach, Baptist Memorial highlights 22 AM.

Employer Solutions Staffing Group II, L.L.C. v. Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer

833 F.3d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2016

We assume without deciding that the I-9 Form qualifies as DHS’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation. Second, DHS claims we owe Chevron deference to the ALJ’s decision in this enforcement action. … Thus, ESSG lacked fair notice, which alters the deference owed. 7 The I-9 Form did not clearly address corporate attestations, and the ALJ’s new interpretation does not flow clearly from any authority in existence prior to

Eddie M. Bigelow v. United Healthcare of Mississippi, Inc., F/k/a Complete Health of Mississippi, Inc., Municipal Corporation of Pass Christian

213 F.3d 254 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 8, 2000

Answering that she did, she filled out and filed the appropriate forms. 6 COBRA also requires that when enumerated "qualifying events" such as termination of employment occur, the "administrator" of a group health plan must … governmental entity, however, and neither ERISA nor its COBRA provisions apply to government-sponsored health plans. 9 The rules for the provision of continuation coverage under government-sponsored health plans are instead established

United States v. Wayne Garfield Brookins, III

614 F.2d 1037 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 1980

Holt before [they] started questioning,” and that Carlton Holt’s name “clearly was discoverable from information they obtained independent of that [interrogation statement],” although the statement was in fact a source of … testimony that he would not have given if the police had not promised Brookins immunity. .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MISSISSIPPI STATE TAX COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee

848 F.2d 526 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

The court held therefore that the MSTC had established a BFOQ. … and fitness as BFOQs does not, as the Eighth Circuit has put it, “ignore ... the testimony of the ... expert witnesses as to the inadequacy of physical examinations and testing as methods of distinguishing between qualified

United States v. Juluke

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 2005

In relevant part, the criminal forfeiture statute provides that any person convicted of a qualifying violation shall forfeit “[a]ny property constituting, or derived from any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly … The “adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present , unless the defendant establishes that it was clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” United States v.

Clark v. Woods

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 26, 2001

determining that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs confuse sovereign immunity with qualified immunity, which we have held applicable to both ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.3 1 Skotak v.

Felix Rocha v. Rick Thaler, Director

619 F.3d 387 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 2010

court proceeding.” 1 “A state court decision is ‘contrary to ... clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court’s] cases.’ ” 2 “A state-court … decision will also be contrary to ... clearly established precedent if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme Court] and nevertheless arrives at a result

Stewart v. Bernstein

769 F.2d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 3, 1985

I Medicaid is a program whereby participating states work with the federal government to provide medical assistance to qualified recipients. … Such remedies are for Congress to state or to clearly imply, not for us to infer.