Case law

Hanover Fire Insurance Company v. Harold W. Holcombe

223 F.2d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 5, 1955

He was bound to decide the case on his opinion of the weight of the evidence in the light of the rule that defendant bore the burden of establishing its defense. … To set his finding aside as clearly erroneous, we are not furnished with any basis, we think we have none, except judicially relying on our own skill in maritime affairs.

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

St. Paul Insurance v. Trejo

39 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 25, 1994

whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar'; or (2) where the 'exercise of federal review of the question in a case and in similar cases would be disruptive of state efforts to establish … We hold that this suit does not qualify under the stringent "exceptional circumstances" test of Colorado River and Moses Cone.

Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States

238 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2001

In 1972, Dresser established Dresser International Sales Corporation (“Dresser International”) as a wholly owned subsidiary. … Although “the realities of business finance,” Dresser, 911 F.2d at 1135, may not have changed since our 1990 Dresser decision, the plain language of the applicable Regulation clearly has.

Jones v. Rankin Cty Shrf Dept

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 28, 2003

PER CURIAM:* Ken Dickerson and Bill Phillips appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. … Dickerson and Phillips argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Jamie Jones did not produce enough competent summary judgment evidence to: (1) establish that any issues of material fact exist; (2) show

Spartus Corp. v. The S/S Yafo

590 F.2d 1310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1979

All recognized the need for international uniformity in ocean bills of lading, particularly the establishment of an irreducible minimum of immunity of the carrier. … On this record, we- cannot say that the district judge was clearly erroneous in concluding that Zim did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the clock movements were delivered to the railroad in good condition

Stephanie Mitchell, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Marlin W. Johnston, in His Official Capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Texas Department of Human Resources, Stephanie Mitchell, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and Eddie Mae Benson, Intervenor-Appellant v. Marlin W. Johnston, in His Official Capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Texas Department of Human Resources

701 F.2d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 14, 1983

Clearly, no prior actual notice of the cutbacks was provided to eligible recipients. … Qualified recipients are entitled to this minimum package of mandatory services under 42 U.S.C.

Aviation Specialties, Inc. v. United Technologies Corporation, Pratt-Whitney Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., and Airwork Division of Pacific Airmotive, Inc.

568 F.2d 1186 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 1978

Nothing suggests that ASI’s repair contracts with Pratt-Whitney were disguised sales of a commodity rather than what they clearly appear to be on their face: contracts for a service, not covered by Section 2(a). … Only Beechcraft Aircraft qualified for a dis- . tributorship of this class. 4 . ASI withdrew its first interrogatories to clarify them. 5 .

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

430 F.2d 724 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 28, 1970

The cases clearly demonstrate that it is the tendency of an employer’s conduct to interfere with the • rights of his employees protected by Section 8 (a) (1), rather than his motives, that is controlling. … However, reliance by the Company on this principle to establish a need for proof of motive in an 8(a) (1) situation is misplaced.

John S. Elliott and Fredda Caldwell Elliott v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company

388 F.2d 362 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 1968

Morris which established his familiarity with water survival and with life saving equipment. … Clearly, the death of Captain Elliott was the result of the aerial flight. The judgment is therefore Affirmed. 1 . The reason for ordering the premiums returned does not appear.

United States v. Luis Cedillo-Narvaez

761 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 2014

illegal status could be the basis for a “vulnerable victim” finding for offenses that do not necessarily involve illegal aliens: This is not to say that the inherent vulnerability of smuggled aliens may never be used as a qualifying … It is well established that this court’s “interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is subject to the- ordinary rules of statutory construe *405 tion.” United States v.

Mount Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and Blue Crossof Florida, Inc.

517 F.2d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 1975

However, only those hospitals and other institutions that qualify as “providers of services” under § 1395x(u), 5 incorporating § 1395x(e), (j), and (o), and that are accredited under § 1395bb, are eligible to receive payments … Both of these grounds clearly envision some kind of fault. Yet § 1395gg(b)(l)(B) mákes absence of fault a defense to recoupment.

Apache Bend Apartments, Ltd. v. U.S. Through I.R.S.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 25, 1992

In order to properly adjudge plaintiffs' claim, we first establish the relevant legal framework. … virtually immunizes social and economic legislative classifications from judicial review." Fritz, 449 U.S. at 183, 101 S.Ct. at 464 (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Grand Isle Shipyard Inc. v. SEACOR MARINE, LLC.

589 F.3d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 22, 2008

Based on Demette, it is apparent that the SEA HORSE IV does not qualify as an OCSLA situs within the meaning of § 1333(a)(1).2 That is, the vessel does not qualify as either “the subsoil and seabed of the [OCS],” an “artificial … This case is thus clearly distinguishable from those decisions, and the district court erred in interpreting them as supporting OCSLA’s applicability in this case.

United States v. John M. Haydel, Jr., A/K/A "Ice Cream" and "Mugsy"

649 F.2d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 8, 1981

“While property ownership is clearly a factor to be considered in determining whether an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, property rights are neither the beginning *1155 nor the end of . .. … There are three commercial establishments in this part of the structure: a beauty salon, a barber shop and an ice cream store.

Ayers v. Board of Regents University of Texas System

557 F. App'x 263 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 10, 2014

Defendants argued that Appellant's official capacity claims were barred by sovereign immunity, that Appellant's individual capacity claims were barred by qualified immunity, and that Appellant's suit in … Indeed, the transcript from the second day of the hearing clearly establishes that Appellant was afforded the opportunity to clear his name.

Bombardier Aerospace v. Ferrer, Poirot

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 5, 2004

(“Salomon”) furnished the plan with broker-dealer services at the direction of the fiduciaries, thus qualifying under § 3(14) as a “party in interest.”18 During the relevant time, Salomon sold … In Health Cost, the Seventh Circuit addressed, inter alia, whether the assignee of an ERISA plan’s reimbursement claims qualified as an ERISA fiduciary and thus as a proper plaintiff in a suit for a constructive trust

Kincy v. Dretke

92 F. App'x 87 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 25, 2004

“To prevail on a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must demonstrate that the state court proceeding ‘resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … Rather, the more appropriate inquiry is whether the “state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.” Cotton v.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Resource Development International, LLC

487 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 2007

In this circuit, proving that IERC operated as a Ponzi scheme establishes the fraudulent intent behind the transfers it made. Id. at 558 . … Based on these two findings, the transfer qualifies as fraudulent under § 24.005(a)(2).

United States v. Nathan George Dinitz

538 F.2d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 1976

Evans merely attempted to establish standards applicable to a pretrial motion to appear pro hac vice. … Clearly, the district judge did not abuse his discretion in precluding the inquiry.