Case law

Doe v. Plyler

628 F.2d 448 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 20, 1980

The De Canas case clearly teaches that Section 21.031 of the Texas Education Code may be invalidated on pre-emption grounds only if, first, Congress has clearly and manifestly evidenced an intent to occupy the field of education … She failed to establish her claim of citizenship and consequently was ordered excluded.

Wilen Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. The Standard Products Company

409 F.2d 56 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 1969

The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that service of process on the defendant in Ohio was insufficient because the Georgia long-arm statute establishing … International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223 , 78 S.Ct. 199, 201 , 2 L.Ed.2d 223, 226 (1957): 6 Looking back over this long history of litigation a trend is clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible scope

Kipp Flores v. AMH Creekside

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 21, 2026

Rule 41(a) I begin by reiterating a well-established principle. Voluntary dismissal is governed by Rule 41(a). … First, the ordinary meaning of “pictorial representations” clearly covers the floorplans and digital renderings.

Alvarez v. Guerrero

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 23, 2025

First, Strickland was clearly established law. … Part II(A) addresses how we determine what the clearly established law was and at what level of generality law is clearly established.

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

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

Helaire v. Mobil Oil Co.

709 F.2d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 22, 1983

Despite these broad areas of immunity, however, there are circumstances where the owner cannot escape liability by reliance upon the stevedore. … Clearly, under these cases Scindia denied liability. In Hill v.

Hayes v. United States

899 F.2d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 1, 1990

It is thus subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a). … Appellant argues that these witnesses were not qualified to give testimony as to the cost of Hayes’ future medical care.

Nevett v. Sides

533 F.2d 1361 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 8, 1976

None of the findings of fact, considered separately from the intermingled conclusions of law, can be set aside as clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a) F.R.Civ.P. … A larger number of blacks qualified than had in 1968.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, Defendant, La Vega Independent School District, Defendant-Appellee

459 F.2d 600 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 10, 1972

We hold that his findings of fact are “clearly erroneous”. Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P.; McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19 , 75 S.Ct. 6 , 99 L.Ed. 20 . … The absence of established pre-dismissal selection criteria as to administrative personnel, in clear violation of the Singleton instructions, makes it unnecessary for us to consider this contention.

Burleson v. TDCJ

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 14, 2001

immunity defense, which the district court did not address.10 Applying our qualified immunity analysis, we note first that Burleson alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional … Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate on the subject of qualified immunity. 13 See Domino v. Tex. Dep’t. of Crim.

Esmark Apparel, Inc. v. James

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 1994

The court also concluded that James had failed to overcome Esmark's qualified privilege by establishing either excessive publication or actual malice on the part of the company. … To maintain its qualified privilege defense, Esmark first must establish that the "occasion" of its alleged defamatory statement was qualifiedly privileged. See Garziano v. E.I.

Susan Dixon v. Comal County, Texas

447 F. App'x 638 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 2011

We have also held that a plaintiff’s showing that the plaintiff was clearly better qualified is enough to prove that the defendant’s proffered reason is a pretext. See id. at 723. … We have held that “showing that two candidates are similarly qualified does not establish pretext.” Price, 283 F.3d at 723.

Purcell v. Seguin State Bank and Trust Co.

999 F.2d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 2, 1993

), (3) that he was replaced by a younger person, and (4) that he was qualified for the job. … On the question of whether discharge occurred, there clearly was enough evidence to support the jury finding as not in plain error.

Ellis Carp v. California-Western States Life Insurance Company

252 F.2d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 19, 1958

Carp could qualify, become eligible upon the completion of one month of continuous service providing they are then actively at work on full-time and for full pay. … It is our holding, in the light of the foregoing authorities, that the burden of proof on the issue of employment, is clearly upon the plaintiff.

Marine Shale Processors, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

81 F.3d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 1996

The EAB stated that MSP did not produce “commercial-grade aggregate” from its system and thus that its facility could not qualify as an aggregate kiln. … . § 260.10 governs whether a facility definitionally qualifies as a BIF. Once a facility has definitionally qualified as a BIF, 40 C.F.R. pt. 266 subpt.

Harrison v. Lilly

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 25, 2021

In the alternative, Defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in terminating Harrison. … Without reaching the qualified immunity issue, the district court granted Defendants’ motion, concluding that Harrison failed to state a First Amendment cause of action.

Garza v. Lopez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 1997

Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity because at the time that they took adverse action against Vojvodich and Garza, the law was clearly established that a sheriff could not take retaliatory employment action … Appellants do not raise any substantial arguments that distinguish this case from the prior two opinions of this court that conclusively decided the qualified immunity issue against him.

Vojvodich v. Lopez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 1997

Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity because at the time that they took adverse action against Vojvodich and Garza, the law was clearly established that a sheriff could not take retaliatory employment action … Appellants do not raise any substantial arguments that distinguish this case from the prior two opinions of this court that conclusively decided the qualified immunity issue against him.

Ranger Insurance v. Culberson

454 F.2d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 28, 1971

policy does not apply and no coverage is afforded to any insured while any aircraft insured under this policy is being operated by a Student Pilot unless said Student Pilot is under the direct supervision of a properly qualified … (c) Establishing requirements for pilot experience. (d) Establishing limitations on the use of the aircraft.” Ga.Code Ann. § 56-2439. [Emphasis added] .