Case law

Anderson Jones v. Elena Perez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2019

Perez claimed that, even if Jones’s rights had been violated, she was entitled to qualified immunity. … The two-step qualified immunity inquiry is familiar: First we determine whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right. Saucier v.

Gonzalez-Garcia v. Gonzales

431 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 16, 2005

Because the offense could be committed without the use of physical force, we agree that this offense does not qualify as a COV. … Landgraf established a two-step analysis for determining whether a statute is given retroactive 10 effect.

Wenche Siemer v. Learjet Acquisition Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 1992

The first two items clearly reflect a much more tenuous jurisdictional connection to Texas by Learjet. … The Ratliff defendant, who had not only qualified to do business and appointed an agent for service of process, but maintained five salesmen in the forum, clearly presents a much greater presence than any Learjet might

United States v. Charles Randell Greer

158 F.3d 228 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 1998

Thus, the mere fact that a defendant suffers from a personality disorder does not make him immune to a § 3C1.1 enhancement. … A skeptic might argue that attempts that cannot possibly succeed do not qualify as "attempts" under the substantive criminal law.

CANarchy Craft Brewery v. Texas Alcoholic

37 F.4th 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 2022

TABC sent cease and desist letters to CANarchy’s Texas brewers, informing them that they did “not qualify to sell malt beverages to consumers for off-premise[s] consumption.” … “We review a district court’s judgment on cross motions for summary judgment de novo, addressing each party’s motion independently, viewing dormant Commerce Clause theories (discriminatory effect and “clearly excessive

Xitronix Corporation v. KLA-Tencor Corporation

916 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 15, 2019

In Nobelpharma, a Walker Process case, the en banc Federal Circuit said that “[w]hether conduct in the prosecution of a patent is sufficient to strip a patentee of its immunity from the antitrust laws is one of those issues … that clearly involves our exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases.” 141 F.3d at 1067.

Clara Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust

798 F.2d 791 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1986

The establishment of liability on the class claim operates to establish a prima facie case on behalf of each member of the class. … In fact, appellee’s expert’s only comment on this distribution was a less than ringing endorsement: "Well, the data is not clearly normal, but, then, again, it is not clearly non-normal.” Id. .

United States v. Melvin Ray Paige

136 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 1998

Consequently, we find that Detective Croft’s subsequent examination of the attic did not qualify as a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes. C. … “It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Horton v.

United States v. Gilbert Espinoza-Seanez, Ernesto Espinoza-Seanez and Raul Lazarin-Becerra

862 F.2d 526 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 1, 1989

For a police search to qualify as an extended border search three factors must be demonstrated. … This standard is the established law as applied by the Fifth Circuit. See Niver, 689 F.2d at 526 and Delgado, 810 F.2d at 484 .

Johnnie Hardman v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 2016

“[T]he claimant has the burden of proving his disability by establishing a physical or mental impairment.” Jones v. … Hardman did not allege a mental impairment, and a mental impairment was not “clearly indicated” by the record. See Leggett, 67 F.3d at 566.

Moreno v. Brownlee

85 F. App'x 23 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 7, 2004

A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was subjected to an adverse employment decision; (3) he was qualified for the position held or sought … The district court, however, in also dismissing this claim, found that Moreno’s carpal tunnel syndrome does not qualify as a “disability” under the ADA, and thus he failed to establish a prima facie case. 2

Delta Truck & Tractor, Inc. v. J.I. Case Co.

975 F.2d 1192 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 29, 1992

Clearly, however, that is not what occurred here; IH did not make a business contraction. … On the contrary, that was the very provision which purported to give Case the right to terminate those dealers without cause and, at the same time, immunize IH.

Chilcutt v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 25, 1993

Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1980). 18 Clearly, had the Government proved its case by a preponderance of the evidence, the fact that the liability elements had been deemed established would have been nugatory … Second, the Justice Department offered no evidence or argument that Means would qualify for reimbursement but for the district court's order.

Bisso v. Waterways Transportation Company

235 F.2d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 1956

well nigh perfect. 4 This brought into play the sensible rule that, even though the engagement is in contract so that the duty of the tug toward the tow is that of due care only, with the consequent burden on the tow of establishing … At that moment, to drop the starboard anchor was both indicated by prudence from the general situation, and the express conclusion of a qualified expert. He thought it was a wise maneuver calculated to help.

United States v. Gavin Allan Paul Patrick Carlos Britton

142 F.3d 836 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 29, 1998

However, despite Paul’s possession of $10,000 and directions to the ship and Britton’s actually going to the vessel, the evidence did not clearly establish that Paul and Britton agreed to participate in and played a role … However, the district court subsequently ruled that Bolewicki was not qualified to testify concerning the ion test. . 392 U.S. 1, 27 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). . Miranda v.

United States v. Maskeny

609 F.2d 183 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 1980

Louis airport after a nonstop flight from Mexico City would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search", 413 U.S. at 273 , 93 S.Ct. at 2539 . 36 "That searches made at the border, pursuant to the long-standing … so engaged . . . . 60 Appellants urge that the effect of the administration of this exemption in the Southern District of Georgia was to exclude all Jehovah's Witnesses in violation of section 1862 of the statute and the establishment

National Labor Relations Board v. Pope Maintenance Corporation

573 F.2d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 26, 1978

Above those minimums, however, the Company is free to establish its own rates and standards. … The Company is owned by Johnny Pope who qualifies for such a contract because he is part Cherokee. 3 .

John J. Vaccaro v. United States

461 F.2d 626 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 12, 1972

United States Coin and Currency. 32 The Supreme Court there stressed, “The conduct being penalized is constitutionally immune from punishment. … Clearly the erroneous instruction was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rodriguez v. Coleman

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 1996

Rodriguez contends that the district court erred in concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … We conclude that the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they were not deliberately indifferent to Rodriguez’s safety.

McClellon v. Lone Star Gas Co.

66 F.3d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 11, 1995

It did not establish the grounds for the federal district court's jurisdiction, did not clearly state that McClellon was entitled to relief, and did not specify the amount of relief desired. … Similarly, if an amendment simply restates with greater particularity or amplifies the details of the complaint, then the amendment qualifies as information that