Case law

Carolyn S. Watts v. The Kroger Company Arthur Bullington, the Kroger Company

170 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 17, 1999

Rule 56 clearly prescribes the manner in which such documents must be presented to the court. Without support for her argument that the statements are nonetheless admissible, we find Watts’ contention groundless. III. … As this element is no longer required, we assume that, for purposes of this appeal, plaintiff has established a cause of action in this case.

Stowers v. Mahon

526 F.2d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1976

The purchaser then gives the seller a check for the established amount. … Since C.I.T. was aware of these outstanding claims, it does not qualify as a good faith purchaser. (Emphasis added.) 510 F.2d at 151-152.

Felix Gonzalez Gisbert v. U.S. Attorney General

988 F.2d 1437 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 28, 1993

U.S. 206, 210 , 73 S.Ct. 625, 628 , 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953) (“Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune … Their rights are determined by the procedures established by Congress.

Addo v. Globe Life & Accident Insurance

230 F.3d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2000

Context In testing the Addo letter to see if it qualifies as an “other paper” for purposes of opening § 1446(b)’s 30-day removal window, we must examine that letter in the framework of all the circumstances that existed at … The district court obviously reached the same conclusion, one that is certainly not clearly erroneous. Similarly, in Golden v.

Swed Distributing Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

323 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 1963

At that time, Swed held a sixty per cent stock interest and Sullivan forty per cent, give or take a few qualifying shares; two years later they were equal partners. … In the first proceedings, upholding the Commissioner’s determination, the Tax Court found that the taxpayer had failed to establish the assignment of the contract. 31 T.C. 84 .

United States v. Joshua Conlan

786 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 14, 2015

A penal statute is unconstitutionally vague “if the conduct it prohibits is not clearly defined.” Id. … Nevertheless, we found sufficient evidence that a vehicle used in a robbery qualified as “both evidence and an instrument of a crime,” id.

United States v. Peter Ayika

837 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 14, 2016

See, e.g., Motion to Dismiss Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, at 1–2 (“Defendant has established that the said subject properties were derived from hard-worked, gainful employments . . . … P. 32.2(e)(1) (“On the government’s motion, the court may at any time enter an order of forfeiture or amend an existing order of forfeiture to include property that . . . is substitute property that qualifies for forfeiture

Anthony A. Edwards v. Johnson

209 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 28, 2000

Madison, 503 U.S. 140, 144 , 112 S.Ct. 1081, 1086 , 117 L.Ed. 2d 291 (1992) 2 , the Court found that where Congresshas not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs. … To prove an underlying constitutional violation in an episodic acts case, the detainee must establish that the official acted with subjective deliberate indifference.

Fei Bian v. Hillary Clinton

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 27, 2010

alien, shall not be approved until an immigrant visa number has been allocated by the Department of State....”9 As Bian contests the USCIS’s decision to adjudicate her application in compliance with regulations that are clearly … within the agency’s discretion to establish, the federal courts are without jurisdiction to entertain her claim. 2.

King v. University Healthcare System L.C.

645 F.3d 713 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 28, 2011

King failed to establish the terms or existence of a valid oral contract. Dr. King argues that the evidence she presented, taken together, meets the requirements for establishing a breach of contract. … To qualify for the “good faith” defense, a defendant must show that its culpable act or omission “was based upon reasonable grounds for believing that [the defendant] was not violating the Act.”

Williams v. IBEW Local 520

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 7, 2003

Other bankruptcy courts have held that a contempt judgment against a debtor in bankruptcy is immune from discharge under Section 523(a)(6). … The conclusion of the bankruptcy court is not clearly erroneous.

Albert Woodfox v. Charles Foti

805 F.3d 639 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 9, 2015

established federal law. … It stated that reversal of a conviction on these grounds did not “render a defendant immune from prosecution” and was not a bar on “subsequent reindictment and reprosecution.” Id. at 558 , 99 S.Ct. 2993 .

11 Fair empl.prac.cas. 167, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,368 United States of America v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries, Inc., Sidney S. Harris, Intervenors-Appellants, National Organization for Women, Inc., Movants-Appellants

517 F.2d 826 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 18, 1975

Bogan, 1 Cir. 1974, 492 F.2d 375, 381 (only where one side is so clearly correct that offer in compromise becomes clearly unreasonable does trial court abuse discretion in approving settlement); Ace Heating & Plumbing Co. … Although these decisions established that the right under the FLSA to receive "minimum wages, promptly paid" plus time-and-one-half for overtime was absolutely enforceable upon pain of damages, they are clearly distinguishable

Pullen v. Vandertuin

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 19, 2000

. § 1983 civil rights suit against Randy Vandertuin, a McKinney, Texas police officer, based on qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from suit if the officers’ actions were reasonable “in light of clearly established law and the information the . . . officers possessed.” Anderson v.

United States v. L.J. Garner and Tommie N. Garner

749 F.2d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 3, 1985

regulations providing for refinancing by the Farmers Home Administration of its own loans at least under certain unspecified circumstances and (2) the Farmers Home Administration considers whether its mortgage loan to the Garners qualifies … However, while this theme is clearly a necessary condition for the exercise of jurisdiction, it is not, by itself, sufficient.

In The Matter Of Dr. Clarence Herman Harper

580 F.2d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 15, 1978

GEE, Circuit Judge: 1 Decision of this appeal requires us to determine whether, for purposes of the Bankruptcy Act, an income tax return filed more than two and one-half years late qualifies as "a return required by law." … Clearly the government's construction is more in line with these aims than is the bankrupt's.

Petroleos Mexicanos v. Crawford Enterprises, Inc.

826 F.2d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 1987

We measure the competency of those findings with the clearly erroneous rule of Fed.R. Civ.P. 52. See also Anderson v. … Pemex does not challenge the rulings on sovereign immunity and notice in this appeal. .

Szumigala v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

853 F.2d 274 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 1988

We again quote what we construe to be the decisive qualifying phrase: The affording of insurance ... to more than one automobile ... hereunder shall not operate to increase the limits of the Company's liability. … We note that where Nationwide intended to prohibit stacking of identical coverages provided under more than one policy, this intent was clearly expressed.

United States v. Haggerty

997 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 7, 2021

Citing Cook, Haggerty argues that if we omit the intra-Indian exception the elements of § 1152 cannot be “accurately and clearly described.” … Pleading not guilty obviously doesn’t qualify as an “objection to the court’s action” or provide “grounds for that objection.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 51(b). It is instead an objection to having to stand trial.

United States v. Litton Systems, Inc., D/B/A Ingalls Nuclear Shipbuilding Division

722 F.2d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 1984

A schedule was established for submission of government objections. … The government simply did not demand a trial date at a time when its uniquely qualified lead counsel was unavailable.