Case law

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.

Kirby Corporation v. USA

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 9, 1997

To qualify for a loan guarantee, a prospective vessel owner must meet certain requirements specified by Title XI and the accompanying MarAd regulations, see 46 U.S.C.App. § 1274(d)(1); 46 … We must assume that the Congress intends, and the language of the statute will clearly provide, for a firm Government obligation which is clear, definite, and unalterable. Id. at 67.

Linda Frew v. Chris Traylor

820 F.3d 715 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 28, 2016

motion to enforce the consent decree was granted, resulting in a lengthy order detailing the district court’s findings of non-compliance. 2 This Court vacated the district court’s decision on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity … Janek, 780 F.3d 320, 328 (5th Cir. 2015) (“The whole point of negotiating and agreeing on a plethora of specific, highly detailed action plans was to establish a clearly defined roadmap for attempting to achieve the Decree

Chaney v. Dreyfus Service Corp.

595 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 25, 2010

Not every broker-customer relationship qualifies, but fiduciary duties can arise where the broker is empowered with discretion. See Indep. Order of Foresters v. … The record does not establish that any individual at DSC was subjectively aware of a high probability that Frankel was engaged in money laundering.

Fisher v. State of Texas

169 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 1999

The state argues that the footnote in the Texas Court of Appeals’s decision alternatively disposing of Fisher’s claim was an adjudication on the merits entitled to deference under AEDPA, and that, because no clearly established … demonstrates that the state courts failed to resolve the claims on the merits”), modified on other grounds, 149 F.3d 1226 (5th Cir. 1998). 9 Va. 1997) (stating that to qualify as an adjudication

Temporary Employment Services v. Trinity Marine Group, Inc.

261 F.3d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 7, 2001

As mentioned briefly at the outset of this section, the LHWCA is a no-fault compensation scheme, in return for which employers are immune from tort liability. … Any such hearing shall be conducted by a [sic] administrative law judge qualified under section 3105 of that title.

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. .

Dorothy Milam Jernigan v. Allstate Insurance Company

272 F.2d 857 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 24, 1959

That statement of the holding in Apon-aug is, I submit, clearly erroneous. … In any event, a curator’s liability is not involved in this caso, and Article 2319 does not detract from the well-established civil law rule that an insane person is not liable for this torts. Yancey v.

Willis Smith v. United States

265 F.2d 14 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 15, 1959

O’Quin engaged in a heated argument with the Court, all of which took place before the prospective jurors in the jury box and could be clearly heard throughout the small Courtroom. … All persons otherwise qualified for jury service are subject to examination as to actual bias.

United States v. Amy Ralston Pofahl, Charles T. Nunn, and Randy White

990 F.2d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 6, 1993

At the time of her arrest, Po-fahl had established a new identity and a new life in Florida. … Nunn claims that his pre-trial discussions with officers, where he admitted involvement in the drug trafficking, qualify as acceptance of responsibility.

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.

Hartford Casualty Insurance v. DP Engineering, L.L.C.

827 F.3d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 2016

For example, approval of a drilling plan is a professional engineering service, but the execution of the plan, which involves construction and conducting drilling operations in accordance with the plan, does not clearly fall … The insurer may have to wait to resolve its duty to indemnify until after a trial in the underlying litigation because facts established at trial determine the duty to indemnify. Id. at 745.

Trahant v. Mintz

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 2026

As such, it was not an abuse of discretion, and surely not clearly so, to decline to abstain in this context. … Plaintiffs assert that the bankruptcy court did not properly establish that this case constitutes a core proceeding because it did not perform a claim-by-claim analysis. See Halper v.

Smith v. Quarterman

471 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 30, 2006

We review these claims under the clearly established law of Strickland v. … established federal law.

Coble v. Quarterman

496 F.3d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 2005

A state court decision is “contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court” if: (1) “the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court … A state court’s incorrect application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent is not enough to warrant federal habeas relief; in addition, such an application must also be unreasonable. Id. at 410-12.

SGS Control Services v. Director

86 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 1996

Jackson qualified this release, stating that when he wrote the note he believed that Mr. … Barrios sought only temporary total disability payments; (3) the evidence did not establish that Mr.

United States v. Cisneros

130 F.4th 472 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2025

Cisneros does not challenge the PSR’s finding that the relevant other offense—drug trafficking—would qualify as a “felony offense.” 7 Case: 23-40625 Document: 100-1 … Concluding that the district court had clearly erred by applying § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), we vacated Eaden’s sentence. Id. at 1009–10.

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.”

Estate of Ira J. Sanders v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 20, 2014

although the plaintiff’s experts did not identify individual defendants by name, there was “a significant amount of expert testimony . . . regarding individual staff members’ negligence,” and “the depositions as a whole clearly … Sklaroff was qualified to give an expert opinion as to the standard of care applicable to a gastroenterologist such as Dr. Azzouz. 12