Case law

Petrohawk Properties, L.P. v. Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P.

689 F.3d 380 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2012

“Fraud need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence and may be established by circumstantial evidence.” LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 1957. 2. … Stockman relied on Broomfield’s misrepresentations is not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Dan Callahan

588 F.2d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 2, 1979

Jeanette Callahan testified at the trial under a grant of immunity. … Jeanette Callahan’s prejudice was also evidenced by her obviously bitter divorce from the doctor, her formal grant of immunity, and her admitted complicity in the “NOL” scheme.

Moore v. Quarterman

454 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 2006

Therefore, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to conclude that Moore is mentally retarded. 4. … If this is the case, then the district court should have only reviewed the state court’s dismissal to determine whether it was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined

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.

Mrs. Wanda Mercer v. Paris Theriot

316 F.2d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 9, 1963

We deal here with a sorry mess where the evidence which might have established the defendant’s guilt or innocence with certainty has been destroyed or irretrievably lost as the result of criminal misconduct on the part of … The type and extent of damage to this rim would be one of the most important bits of evidence, as it would clearly show the fact of the hardness of the object hit.

United States v. MacEo Simmons, Cross-Appellee

470 F.3d 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 21, 2006

Because the testimony at issue was not hearsay under Rule 801(c), we need not consider whether it qualified as a Rule 801(d)(2)(A) exception to the hearsay rule. … The Government argued: The evidence clearly establishes that the defendant placed Syreeta [Robinson] in fear of death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping. First of all, he had already kidnapped her.

Peterson v. Hardwell

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 8, 2001

City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 1998) (setting forth qualified immunity test). … Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding appellees were entitled to qualified immunity against the First Amendment claim.

Fierros v. TX Dept of Health

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2001

This language clearly contemplates that the denial of a pay increase can be an act of “discrimination” against an employee. … Similarly, in Mota, we reasoned that the employer’s discontinuation of the plaintiff’s stipend qualified as an “ultimate employment decision” because it was “a compensation decision.” 261 F.3d at 521; see also id.

United States of America and Doris Elaine Brown v. The Board of Education of the City of Bessemer, United States of America and Dwight Armstrong v. Board of Education of the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama, United States of America and Linda Stout, by Her Father and Next Friend, Blevin Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education

396 F.2d 44 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 1968

This shall be stated in terms that clearly define the Board's responsibilities. 26 This leaves the problem of the ultimate 'C day.' … But instead of a questionnaire, the Assistant Superintendent asked each school Principal and supervisor to furnish the names of teachers qualified both educationally and emotionally to teach in a school where they would be

Thomas v. Dep't of Educ. (In Re Thomas)

931 F.3d 449 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 2019

. § 523(a)(8). 1 In In re Gerhardt, 348 F.3d 89 (5th Cir. 2003), this court adopted the three-prong test for evaluating “undue hardship” claims established by the Second Circuit in Brunner v. … Congress’s series of amendments clearly evinces an intent to limit bankruptcy’s use as a means of offloading student loan debt except in the most compelling circumstances.

United States v. Orleans Parish Sch

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 28, 2001

Does the School Board qualify as, “Any person” under the False Claims Act? … For example, sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment does not extend to governmental entities which are not an arm of a state. Alden v.

Muir v. Alabama Educational Television Commission

688 F.2d 1033 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 15, 1982

Relying on the system of FCC regulation, the majority has granted state broadcasters immunity from constitutional scrutiny. … Thus, having been established by Congress in 1891 as one of the original Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Fifth Circuit is indeed in its twilight. .

E. S. I. Meats, Inc. v. Gulf Florida Terminal Co.

639 F.2d 1348 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 1981

To the extent that there was conflicting evidence, the court’s acceptance of the plaintiffs’ theory was not clearly erroneous. … Although Sullivan was a contract action, its rationale clearly supports the award of prejudgment interest for the deprivation of property or money.

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

United States v. Hyde

574 F.2d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 9, 1978

Clearly, however, probable cause to intercept communications may exist even where no tangible evidence can be found. … Middlebrooks (whose complicity in the cocaine conspiracy was established beyond question).

In the Matter of Topco, Inc., Debtor. River Production, Co., Inc. v. Jack M. Webb, Trustee

894 F.2d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 20, 1990

Because Section 158(c) establishes appellate procedure only for appeals from bankruptcy courts to district courts, Section 158(c) does not establish the time limit for appeals to courts of appeals. … Section 158(d) clearly grants courts of appeals jurisdiction over the former and just as clearly does not grant courts of appeals jurisdiction over the latter.

A. C. Ross, District Director of Internal Revenue, Atlanta, Georgia v. Suzanne Odom, Individually and as of the Estate of Benton Odom, Deceased

401 F.2d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 16, 1968

them. 21 Second, no reason appears to show why the proceeds from life insurance contracts, such as we have here, once found to fit within the statutory exemption of § 101 (a) (1), should be affected by a later provision clearly … "Establishment of system; management, power and privileges; names. — A retirement system is hereby established and placed under the management of the board of trustees for the purpose of providing retirement allowances and

United States v. William Robert Cook and Charles Stafford Jackson, A/K/A Cal Stewart

557 F.2d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 19, 1977

To qualify for admission under Rule 404(b), therefore, the injunction documents here would have to evidence the commission of some crime, wrong or act at least related in nature to the present charge of mail fraud. … Though it was error to admit the injunction documents, the error was clearly harmless, within the Chapman standard in Jackson’s case.

Seidenstein, M.D. v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc.

769 F.2d 1100 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 3, 1985

The Supreme Court defined the two elements of establishing monopoly in United States v. … Defamation was established and malice was established. 42 This Court takes away from plaintiff a jury verdict which on its face has sufficient evidence to support it. We have no authority to do this.

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.