Case law

Nathenson v. Zonagen Inc.

267 F.3d 400 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 15, 2001

The broad contours of the events in question are as follows. 2 An adjuvant a is foreign substance that improves a given immune response in the body by enhancing the effect of a particular antigen, which is … The April 1, 1996 10K also refers to Immumax as a “unique naturally occurring substance which enhances the immune response against weakly immunogenic materials.”

Carl D. West, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Andrew J. Daigle, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

573 F.2d 873 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 28, 1978

Cf. 24 C.F.R. § 1909.1 (1977) (defining "mudslide" as a "flow . . . of liquid mud down a hillside . . ."). 19 Since the Daigles' loss occurred in a manner that the policy clearly excluded from coverage, there was no issue … That the government has a financial stake in this program is not sufficient to cloak the defendant with the robe of sovereign immunity from awards of any interest. Cf. White v.

Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc.

526 F.3d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2008

Despite Kirschbaum’s efforts on appeal to recast this as a claim of imprudence, Count I clearly states a failure to diversify. … [are] not violated by acquisition or holding of qualifying employer real property or qualifying employer securities [in an EIAP].” § 1104(a)(2).

Jane Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District

168 F.3d 806 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 26, 1999

Because the Court refused to find that the nonsectarian nature of a prayer could save it from Establishment Clause scrutiny, the Court did not need to decide whether this oration qualifies as nonsectarian or nonproselytizing … Board of Education, this Court has adhered to the principle, clearly manifested in the history and logic of the Establishment Clause, that no State can 'pass laws which aid one religion' or that 'prefer one religion over

Collier v. Cockrell

300 F.3d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal court may grant the writ if the state court’s application of clearly established federal law is “objectively unreasonable.” Id. … The district court found that the investigator’s affidavit is hearsay and “does not establish any federal constitutional error.”

Forsythe International, S.A. v. Gibbs Oil Company of Texas

915 F.2d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 1990

The parties disputed whether the term “EEC qualified” meant duty-free. The panel bypassed the semantic dispute, noting only that various contract amendments had not expressly abolished duty-free status. … [where] the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or ... whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.” Id. at 289 & n. 19, 102 S.Ct. at 1790 & n. 19.

McDonald v. Hartford Life Group Insurance

361 F. App'x 599 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 19, 2010

He concluded that McDonald’s file did not “establish a complete impairment from gainful employment.” Based on Dr. … “An administrator’s decision to deny benefits must be ‘based on evidence, even if disputable, that clearly supports the basis for its denial.’ ” Lain v. UNUM Life Ins.

Williams v. Brasea

497 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 5, 1974

P. 52(a), and may overturn only a finding of fact which we determine to be clearly erroneous. … Thus we qualify our holding by saying that even if products liability law is to be incorporated into our general maritime law, there can be no liability under the facts of this case.

Michael Krause v. Gean Leonard

352 F. App'x 933 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 6, 2009

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … prison officials from displaying deliberate indifference toward prisoners’ medical needs.13 Mere negligence, though, is not enough.14 Rather, “the legal conclusion of deliberate indifference . . . must rest on facts clearly

Louisiana Credit Union League v. The United States of America

693 F.2d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 14, 1982

Section 513(c) now clearly states that any activity carried on for the production of income constitutes a trade or business. … In the court’s opinion, only “active” participation would qualify as a trade or business.

Robert L. Streetman v. James A. Lynaugh, Interim Director, Texas Department of Corrections

812 F.2d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 29, 1987

Authorities granted Johnson immunity. Neither Johnson nor Kirkendoll personally testified during Streetman’s trial although the State read Kirkendoll’s statement to the jury. … Wainwright, 734 F.2d 770, 772 (11th Cir.1984) (statement obtained by police threats and physical force clearly not admissible).

Sanches v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District

647 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 13, 2011

Ineffective responses, however, are not necessarily clearly unreasonable. In Doe ex rel. Doe v. … To establish title IX retaliation, Sanches must show that the district or its representatives took an adverse action against her because she complained of harassment. Jackson v.

Mozelle Clark v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Resources

638 F.2d 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 13, 1981

On the reverse side of the notice, there was contained the following statement: While it is not required, you may be represented at the hearing by an attorney or other qualified person of your choice. … We do not criticize the conduct of the three administrative law judges on the ground that any one of them intended to be unfair or intended to establish a record of the number of cases that would be disposed of in a single

Martin v. Trinity Industries, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 1992

Defendants assert that the warrant does not "clearly and unambiguously" order Trinity to compel its employees to wear such test equipment against their wishes. … But the holding that use of personal sampling devices is reasonable was qualified, in that the Service Foundry panel reco gnized "OSHA's practice of merely asking and not requiring employees to wear the sampling devices

Coble v. Dretke

444 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 2006

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’s] … 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.

Robinson v. Ardoin

37 F.4th 208 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 2022

A finding is clearly erroneous where, after reviewing the entire record, we are “left with the definite and firm conviction” that the district court erred. … In their telling, the plaintiffs’ experts established only that “black voters and white voters voted differently.” Id. at 9 (quotation omitted). We disagree.

Robert Henry Landsdown v. United States

348 F.2d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 1965

Although this may have been correct under the circumstances of the cited case, no proper purpose would be served here by the admission of such irrelevant testimony which was clearly prejudicial to the accused. … “I have made this statement of my own free will, without being threatened, injured or intimidated and without having been promised any reward or immunity.

Rolls v. Packaging Corp of America

34 F.4th 431 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 2022

But the plaintiff bears the burden of showing a qualifying intentional act, and that burden is steep. See Million v. Exxon Mobil Corp./Exxon Chem. Co., 2019 WL 3210079, at *4 (M.D. La. … Rolls clearly fails to meet this burden here. Indeed, even when ascribing the best possible light to Ms.

Clifton Charles Russell, Jr. v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

998 F.2d 1287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 1993

The state insists, to the contrary, that Russell’s claim must fail because Penry clearly states that a special instruction is required “upon request.” … It is well established that a prosecutor has discretion to enter into plea bargains with some defendants and not with others.

National Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Company and Quality Banana Co., Inc., Petitioners-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross

565 F.2d 1331 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 1978

The Board’s findings are entitled to respect; but they must nonetheless be set aside when the record before a Court of Appeals clearly precludes the Board’s decision from being justified by a fair estimate of the worth of … The size of an established bargaining unit is a non-mandatory bargaining subject. See, e. g., Hess Oil & Chemical Corp., supra at 444-45.