Case law

United States v. Robert Lyons

731 F.2d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 1984

But Blake did not qualify Bailey . … If this were not already clearly the law of the circuit, we would join in an unequivocal clarification en banc. But that would not alter the result as to Lyons.

United States v. Carlos Becerra

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 21, 2020

Our existing 7 Case: 19-50447 Document: 00515610040 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/21/2020 No. 19-50447 precedent clearly … establishes that bans on computer and Internet use imposed for long durations of time must be narrowly tailored in terms of their scope.

In The Matter Of Schokbeton Industries, Inc.

466 F.2d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 1972

Products' contractual right to terminate the contract clearly survived both the filing of the arrangement petition and the referee's belated attempt to resurrect an already moribund agreement. … Any such contract or lease not assumed or rejected within such time, whether or not a trustee has been appointed or has qualified, shall be deemed to be rejected * * *." 11 U.S.C.A.

United States v. Kojak Batiste

980 F.3d 466 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 13, 2020

“A court abuses its discretion when the court makes an error of law or bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v. … Ct. 2243 (2016), a particular Texas controlled substance offense no longer qualifies as a predicate conviction for purposes of the § 4B1.1 career offender enhancement. Id. at 416.

Raymond Wayne Hill v. The City of Houston, Texas

764 F.2d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 4, 1985

The first clause protects the policeman from being assaulted or struck in the performance of his duty, and clearly applies only to physical conduct. … For example, federal law prohibits “assaulting, resisting or impeding” certain federal officers. 41 It is similar to the Houston city ordinance, but it qualifies the proscribed conduct with the adverb “forcibly.”

United States v. Carlos Becerra

977 F.3d 373 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 6, 2020

Our existing 7 Case: 19-50447 Document: 00515592050 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/06/2020 No. 19-50447 precedent clearly … establishes that bans on computer and Internet use imposed for long durations of time must be narrowly tailored in terms of their scope.

Coleman v. Grapevine, City of

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 31, 1996

In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Rankin v. … If so, the court must then decide whether the defendant's conduct was objectively reasonable in order to determine whether he is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

United States v. Cadena

585 F.2d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 16, 1979

Unlike them, the answer is not clearly charted. … The nature and identification of the substance was clearly established.

United States v. Darrin Soza

874 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

, however, have rejected this approach. 21 But these latter two circuits do require that, to qualify as a fugitive from justice, a defendant must have had knowledge that charges against him are pending. 22 19 See … The single page of the warrant that was before the district court is insufficient to establish intent.

Robert Wayne Williams v. Ross Maggio, Jr., Warden and the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana

679 F.2d 381 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 21, 1982

Then, in three sentences, the majority construes that testimony to establish a “record of automatic opposition to the death penalty:” If one examines the underscored portion of her statement, one clearly finds that *398 she … But why are judges qualified to say what were the meaningful portions of the Recommendation insofar as the members of the jury were concerned?

United States v. Thomas Reedy and Janice Reedy

304 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 7, 2002

The court properly considered those sums when establishing the enhancement. C. … The government answers that Reedy qualified because his criminal enterprise involved more than five participants.

Bennie Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc., Kmart Corporation v. Paul S. Minor

332 F.3d 796 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2003

Whether there is a basis in law is clearly the relevant inquiry under Rule 11(b)(2), not Rule 11(b)(1). … The case before us is clearly distinguishable from Coats .

United States v. H. Ray Evers, M. D., an Individual, Doing Business as Ra-Mar Clinic, Ann H. Garrett, Defendants-Intervenors

643 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 27, 1981

In order to establish that Dr. Evers misbranded Calcium EDTA, the government relies on section 502(f)(1) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352 (f)(1). … In order to qualify for the prescription drug exception under these regulations, the drug’s labeling must meet a number of specific full disclosure requirements.

O'Hara v. Petal Police Department

260 F. App'x 632 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 20, 2007

This court reviews de novo a summary judgment predicated on qualified immunity, applying the same standards as does a district court. See Mack v. City of Abilene, 461 F.3d 547, 555 (5th Cir. 2006). … Defendants’ actions regarding O’Hara’s car and daughter during the approximate two-hour period that O’Hara was detained also were objectively reasonable for qualified immunity purposes.

Robert Anthony Carter v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

131 F.3d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 12, 1997

In order for him to raise such doubt, he must present facts sufficient “to positively, unequivocally and clearly generate a real, substantial and legitimate doubt” concerning his mental capacity. 11 “When federal habeas is … We have previously determined, however, that the State of Texas has not yet qualified for the expedited procedures governing habeas corpus petitions in capital cases. See Mata v.

Commercial Trading Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee-Cross

466 F.2d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 25, 1972

This highlights the factual necessity of establishing that the delivery without surrender of its bills of lading was contrary to the directions of the shipowner, not just a breach of some ordinarily applicable obligation. … It is this quality which is common to the . . . risks formerly discussed as being within the term ‘perils of the sea’, and in the Court’s opinion it is the sole ingredient essential in order to qualify a risk as a ‘like peril

Ewing Construction Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Insuranc

684 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 15, 2012

Unlike the duty to defend, which is determined by the eight corners rule, the duty to indemnify is determined by the facts actually established in the underlying lawsuit. D.R. Horton, 300 S.W.3d at 744. … The tort claim was dismissed on immunity grounds leaving only RTR’s breach of contract claim pending against Gilbert.

Foremost Dairies, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

348 F.2d 674 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 1965

It was established that the demands of the Michigan territory were fairly constant. … This case is clearly distinguishable from the one under consideration, particularly in view of the duration of the discriminations in the instant case and the context in which they were made.

Dugas v. Pelican Construction Co.

481 F.2d 773 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 11, 1973

To qualify for Jones Act benefits, an injured worker must be on more or less permanent assignment to a vessel or performing a substantial part of his work aboard a vessel. Offshore Company v. … The concept that seaworthiness contemplates the crew as well as a vessel and its gear has been firmly established in maritime law. In Boudoin v.

Myrtle L. Phillips v. Louie L. Wainwright, as Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation, State of Florida

624 F.2d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 1980

I would establish that predicate and then ask them for their opinion. THE COURT: Proceed. … Phillips has made no showing that it was “unfair” in any degree, much less “fundamentally unfair,” for the trial court to have refused to permit her experts to state a conclusion that was clearly outside the scope of their