Case law

Federal Trade Commission v. National Business Consultants, Inc.

376 F.3d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

They do not qualify as a hearsay exception under either Rule 803 or Rule 804. … Namer’s limited testimony did not establish that the transfers occurred more than six years prior to the commencement of this action.

In Re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation. Sauquoit Fibers Company v. Leesona Corporation, Kayser-Roth Corporation (In Its Own Name and D/B/A Kayser-Roth Hosiery Companyand Kayser-Roth Hosiery Co., Inc.) v. Leesona Corporation, Leesona Corporation v. The Duplan Corporation

498 F.2d 271 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 29, 1974

invention * * * (must have) * * * been tested so far as to make sure that it will operate under service conditions. * * * (A) test under service conditions is necessary in those cases, and in those only, in which persons qualified … Therefore, the fact that Leesona's inventions may have been functional for public use purposes, even if established or admitted, would not preclude a finding of experimental use, if that could be established by sufficient

Jimmy G. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELI LILLY & CO., Defendant-Appellee

990 F.2d 812 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 25, 1993

grants of summary judgment, is a long and well established one. … As Lilly does not contest this point on appeal, and all of the elements are clearly met, we make the same assumption.

Guy Carpenter & Company, Inc. v. Anthony Provenzale

334 F.3d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2003

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which courts grant only if the movant has clearly carried the burden as to all four elements. Kern River, 899 F.2d at 1462 . … This is precisely the relationship that the 1999 Agreement establishes.

Blanton v. Quarterman

543 F.3d 230 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 19, 2008

A state court’s decision is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent if it applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases, or if it confronts a set of facts that are materially … A state court unreasonably applies clearly established federal law if it identifies the correct governing principle, but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the case. See Brown v.

A. Boe, by His Next Friend, B. Boe v. Linus Wright

648 F.2d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 5, 1981

Texas’ interest in educating the electorate is clearly frustrated in this case. … DISD is already short of bilingual teachers and faces a problem of recruiting qualified bilingual teachers.

Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.

785 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 8, 2015

Claimants can establish causation by showing various “revenue patterns.” … It is well established that parties are not required to appeal interlocutory orders. See In re Chicken Antitrust Litig. Am.

United States v. Peter Hoffman

901 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 24, 2018

Of the $11,945,184 in claimed expenditures, the Silva firm deemed $11,785,934 “qualified.” … The email that is 13These emails also clearly furthered the scheme to defraud Louisiana.

United States v. Alfonso Mora, Jesus Medina, Juan Torres Sosa and Ricardo Reyes Lira

994 F.2d 1129 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 1993

When Ayers had established his surveillance position, the three men were standing between the van and the pickup truck. … section 2D1.4 (1991) provides that if a defendant is convicted of a conspiracy involving a controlled substance, the offense level shall be the same as if the object of the conspiracy had been completed. 14 The commentary qualifies

United States v. Kenneth L. Musgrave and Marshall Womack

483 F.2d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 1973

SMITH: The Court put the burden on Musgrave to establish good faith and put the burden on the Government to establish bad faith beyond a reasonable doubt. … Although the Musgrave-tVomack contract called for MAI appraisals, Musgrave submitted valuations prepared by Vernon Thomas and himself, neither of whom were MAI qualified.

Sanders v. Foti

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 30, 2001

Stalder has filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the magistrate judge’s denial of his qualified immunity defense to plaintiff Carla Sanders 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. … As a result, the judgment denying qualified immunity is AFFIRMED.

Novak v. Beto

456 F.2d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 8, 1972

These wise safeguards were never intended to give the murderer or the robber or the rapist immunity from the consequences of his crime. … It is a fact that only a small percentage of prisoners are so hardened, so incorrigible, so determined to establish their own immunity to prison rules and regulations that they insist on going to solitary to prove their point

United States v. Cruz-Meza

310 F. App'x 634 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 2009

2008) (holding that, because a second state conviction for simple 7  No. 08-40365 Government responds that the district court did not clearly … We reject Cruz-Meza’s argument that because there is a theoretical possibilty that the 2000 conviction was not final, the district court clearly erred in finding on this record that it was final. Cf.

Love v. Foster

100 F.3d 413 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 15, 1996

It is not disputed that the main purpose of the federal law, as clearly demonstrated by its text and legislative history, is to establish the federal election day to restrict the states’ original powers to conduct Congressional … "The [appellants] do not dispute that where only one candidate 'qualifies’ for U.S. Representative or U.S.

United States v. Gonzalez-Dominguez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2025

The indictment did not allege a qualifying removal. Nor was a qualifying removal proved to a jury. … As Ramirez explains, a district court does not always clearly err when it establishes a predicate removal based on the PSR. 557 F.3d at 204–05.

Hultberg v. State of Louisiana

163 F.3d 1356 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 24, 1998

. § 1997 et seq., which authorizes states to establish grievance procedures for inmates and allows courts to require exhaustion of those procedures. … Rameriz is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983, or whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant declaratory relief.

Carl Johnston v. Harris County Flood Control District

869 F.2d 1565 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 22, 1989

Section 1983 provides that any person who, under color of state law, deprives another of “any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, … HCFD advances two reasons why the court’s award includes time for duplicated efforts, but fails to establish clear error.

Owen D. Roane v. Callisburg Independent School District

511 F.2d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 1975

On the first day of July thereafter the term shall begin, continuing for a period of time elected until his successor is elected and qualified. … Upon a review of the record we are unable to conclude that this finding was clearly erroneous.

United States v. Cabrera

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

by a preponderance of the evidence was not clearly erroneous. … The commentary to section 3B1.1 recognizes that “[t]here can, of course, be more than one person who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy.” U.S.

Joyrell Godfrey v. Katy Independent School Dist

395 F. App'x 88 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2010

qualified for the subject job.”20 Godfrey’s qualifications do not “leap from the record” as clearly superior to any of the three teachers hired. … Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 723 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that “better education, work experience, and longer tenure with the company do not establish that [an applicant] is clearly better qualified”). 19