Case law

City of Waco, Texas v. James Dean Bridges, James Dean Bridges, Percy Garcia and U.S.A.

710 F.2d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 16, 1983

Property seized by an officer employed by the state would qualify under art. 18.17 and would ultimately inure to the benefit of the county. … The burden of establishing exceptional circumstances clearly rests on the party asserting the new issue. In this case, the United States has not met its burden.

Lipscomb v. Columbus Municipal Separate School District

269 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 2001

Eleventh Amendment Immunity The State for the first time seeks a dismissal on grounds of sovereign immunity. … Ex parte Young of course offers an exception to the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. That is, state immunity is no bar to enjoining a proper state official from unconstitutional acts.

Capital National Bank of Tampa, Cross-Appellant v. J.A. Hutchinson, Jr., Cross-Appellee

435 F.2d 46 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 22, 1970

Express agreement becomes unnecessary when the parties clearly manifest an intention to effect a novation. … Clearly the perimeter of the “express agreement” requirement is capacious in Florida.

Waste Control Specialists, LLC v. Envirocare of Texas, Inc.

199 F.3d 781 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 18, 2000

Additionally, Envirocare raised the Noerr-Pennington affirmative defense, i.e., that these activities were immune from suit because efforts to influence public officials cannot violate antitrust laws. … Although not expressly saying so, the district court’s order clearly hinted that WCS’s only possible claim was a federal one.

Jonathan Forbes v. Harris County, Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 4, 2020

immunity. … Because our probable cause analysis and the first step of the qualified immunity analysis are the same, see, e.g., Hale v.

Koerner v. Colonial Bank

800 F.2d 1358 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 1986

This court is clearly vested with jurisdiction over the district court order dismissing Koerner’s appeal from the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny his motion for reconsideration or for a new trial under 28 U.S.C. § 158 … Section 201 of the 1978 Act established a “United States Bankruptcy Court” in each judicial district “as an adjunct to the district court for such district.”

U.S. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 1992

Once a prima facie case is established, a party may rebut the presumption by relying on § 1304(2)(q). … Therefore, the government established a prima facie case of cargo loss or damage.

Irby J. Robertson, Sr. v. Douglas Steamship Company

510 F.2d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 1975

There is always some degree of uncertainty when a litigant seeks to establish causation by expert testimony. … If a qualified witness gives it as his opinion that the causal relation did exist or probably did exist, there is not much question about the legal sufficiency of the testimony.

Jefferson v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London

658 F. App'x 738 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2016

The plaintiffs argue otherwise, relying on the venerable rule that “the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought.” 15 This rule clearly applies, for example, to a party’ … Because the citizenship of Lloyd’s is not clearly established by the record, we vacate the district court’s remand order and remand to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction

Smith v. Blue

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 2002

Byron Blue The district court granted Blue’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we determine, “(1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the defendant

In the Matter of Samuels & Co., Inc., Bankrupt. Curtis R. Stowers v. James S. Mahon, Trustee, and C. I. T. Corporation

483 F.2d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 1973

to the plaintiffs. 34 The opinion of the trial court and cases cited reflect that earnest arguments have been presented on behalf of the livestock market agencies to the effect that the law governing their liability or immunity … or trade in which they are engaged or of which they are or should be aware give particular meaning to and supplement or qualify terms of an agreement. (4) The express terms of an agreement and an applicable course of dealing

Staley v. Harris County TX

485 F.3d 305 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2007

To qualify as a prevailing party, “[a]ll that is required is that the plaintiff obtain the primary relief sought.” … For example, in cases mooted by actions that were clearly unattributable to the voluntary actions of the parties, we have consistently vacated. See Murphy v.

78 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1006, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,708 Kordice M. Douglas, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Dyn McDermott Petroleum Operations Company John Poindexter, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees

163 F.3d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 16, 1998

The plaintiff first must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a "prima facie" case of discrimination. … Thus, the requirement that the employer produce evidence clearly setting forth its reasons for the challenged employment action gives the plaintiff a "full and fair" rebuttal opportunity.

Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch

726 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 23, 2013

Preliminarily, I question whether this ordinance qualifies to be called an exercise of police power, because it cannot be said “to promote the safety, peace, public health, convenience and good order of its people.” 3 City … Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.”); Hines, 312 U.S. at 64 , 61 S.Ct. at 402 ; Chy Lung v.

Manuel v. PAW Drilling & Well

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 1998

The summary judgment evidence established that the workover rig had been bolted to this particular barge for more than two years. … In sum, the summary judgment evidence clearly reveals both “the purpose for which the craft [was] constructed and the business in which it [was] engaged.”

Chen v. City of Houston

206 F.3d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 9, 2000

It also establishes an intention on the part of the City to establish minority-majority districts. … The protection of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges And Immunities Clause, which has been said to embrace “the right to vote for national officers,” Twining v.

United States v. Dorothy R. Garber

607 F.2d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 1979

However, the court did permit the government to introduce testimony by an Internal Revenue Service agent who qualified as an expert in the field of accounting and taxation. … The evidence clearly established that the underreporting was intentional.

Hampton v. Segura

276 F. App'x 413 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 30, 2008

3  No. 07-60603 are precluded or barred by (1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,6 (2) res judicata and collateral estoppel, or (3) absolute or qualified … immunity.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Boeing Services International, A/K/A Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc.

968 F.2d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 19, 1992

Fifteen years before Betts, we held that “the words retirement, pension or insurance are added in a clearly descriptive sense, not excluding other kinds of employee benefit plans.... ” Brennan v. … Neither party disputes that the BSI equivalent pay program existed and that BSI paid amounts to qualifying incumbents. Also, did the employer “observe the terms of” the plan?

Judith Ann Petersen v. Talisman Sugar Corporation

478 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 3, 1973

United States, 407 U.S. 197 , 92 S.Ct. 1842 , 32 L.Ed.2d 653 (1971), the mere fact that the owner has sequestered its employees from general social intercourse with mankind can afford it no immunity from the prohibitions … The migrant workers here have neither invited nor rejected the plaintiffs, though as occupants of dwellings they clearly have the right to repudiate solicitors. See Martin v. Struthers and Breard v. Alexandria, supra.