Case law

Thyssen, Inc. v. Nobility MV

421 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2005

Subsection 1304(2)(i) of COGSA provides immunity for the carrier and ship for an “[a]ct or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative”; and subsection 1304(2)(q) provides immunity where … In response, Fenice argues the district court correctly concluded that this carriage, pursuant to bills of lading clearly incorporating charter parties and thereby COGSA, was private,

United States v. Ollison

555 F.3d 152 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 6, 2009

Sepeda was qualified to testify as an expert, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that his opinion testimony, whether lay or expert, would assist the jury in evaluating the evidence. D. … Sentencing Guidelines Manual] § 3B1.3 is a sophisticated factual determination reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v.

Estate of Meade v. Commissioner

489 F.2d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 1974

Since the open transaction event qualified for capital gain treatment, the amounts ultimately collected from the settlement do also. … The transactions there were clearly considered incomplete until the litigation to set a purchase price had concluded.

Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College v. Arnease Ludley, Louisiana State Board of Education v. Alma Lark, Louisiana State Board of Education v. Jack Bailey

252 F.2d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 28, 1958

, Circuit Judge. 1 These three appeals are from orders granting a temporary injunction forbidding the defendants, Louisiana State Board of Education and Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, to deny to any qualified … Either it attempts to give designated officials the power to exclude students from all state supported colleges without establishing objective standards which they can seek to satisfy or it implies the standard (which was

City of Mobile v. Marx & Co.

75 F.2d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 6, 1935

That the said mayor and general council shall and it is hereby invested with full authority and power to make, all proper regulations for preserving, maintaining, and operating such water works and sewerage systems when established … The language of those provisions not clearly showing that the officials were in error in so doing, a doubt as to the meaning of the language used must be resolved in favor of that construction. Grand Trunk Western R.

34 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1009, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,311 Larry Williams v. The City of New Orleans, Etc.

729 F.2d 1554 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 23, 1984

Further, firm rules have not been established as to when quotas must be used. … “If a party is not qualified for a position in the first instance, affirmative action considerations do not come into play.” Bratton v. City of Detroit, 704 F.2d 878, 892 (6th Cir.1983).

Ronald L. Bullion v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, A. Freeman Edgerton v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Anthony v. Noto, Joseph A. Dazzio, and Carol L. Harelson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

881 F.2d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 1989

They clearly knew of the charges since they fully litigated them at the hearing. B. … The record established that the FDIC analyzed these factors in its determination that penalties should be assessed. See footnote 2

Taylor v. Payne

265 F. App'x 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 6, 2008

In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants countered by claiming qualified immunity. … And “[a]n officer challenges materiality when he contends that ‘taking all the plaintiff's factual allegations as true no violation of a clearly established right was shown.’” Id. at 351 (quoting Cantu v.

Varice Smith, Jr. v. Olin Chemical Corporation

555 F.2d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 1977

Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) clearly indicates that there is a narrow class of job requirements for which no evidentiary showing is needed. … The plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination by showing (i) he belonged to a racial minority; (ii) he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) despite his

Laurence G. Russell, William L. Hanna and Eddie D. Langwell, Plaintiffs v. National Mediation Board, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

714 F.2d 1332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 28, 1983

There are no qualifiers attached to the Act’s simple definition of “representative.” … It clearly does not weigh on the instant controversy. 10 .

Western-Southern Life Asuc Co. v. George Kaleh

879 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 2018

Section 51.003(a)’s limitations period qualifies the plaintiff’s right to seek a deficiency judgment, a cause of action we have already established exists independent of the statutory scheme. … We therefore agree with the district court’s interpretation of the contract, and we do not see its corresponding evaluation of the evidence as clearly erroneous. IV.

United States v. Peter Fleming Hoffman

488 F.2d 923 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 28, 1974

Hoffman appealed this reclassification within the Selective Service System on the basis that his upcoming position as a graduate teaching assistant in college mathematics qualified him for a Class II-A (occupational) *925 … Suffice it to say that the order of call defense has not been established here.

Tenneco Exploration, Ltd. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

649 F.2d 376 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 1981

That places the gas under section 109(a)(2) pricing (unless it qualifies for an incentive price category) rather than under section 104 pricing. 3 FERC additionally argues that the NGPA definition of “committed or dedicated … The Conference Committee Report to the NGPA státes with regard to § 109(a)(2) that “[i]n determining whether a ‘just and reasonable’ price ceiling has been established under the Natural Gas Act, the conferees do not intend

Alberti v. Klevenhagen

46 F.3d 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 23, 1995

We have held that: an assessment of costs against the state is not prohibited by the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Clearly, the February 4, 1975 order was— just as it was labeled — a consent judgment. 2.

Dennis Thurl Dowthitt v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

230 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 16, 2000

His ineffective assistance of counsel claim meets the threshold question under AED-PA, § 2254(d)(1), that the rule of law be clearly established at the time of the state court conviction in 1992. … We conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate whether the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals was *754 “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established ...

Coleman v. Houston Indep Sch

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 9, 1999

We did not, however, render judgment granting Ellis qualified immunity. … We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by including as a category certain hours billed as a consequence of Ellis’ prior appeal on the issue of qualified immunity.

Goffney v. Carr

78 F. App'x 974 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 27, 2003

After a period of discovery, the individual defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … The defendants give lip service to this correct legal standard; however, their argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity clearly rests on a 2 portrayal of contested issues

United States of America, United States of America, State of Louisiana, Intervenor-Appellee v. Marine Shale Processors, Cross-Appellee

81 F.3d 1329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 1996

MSP argues that the district court’s penalty calculations were based on clearly erroneous findings of fact. … The court further stated, “If these wastes fail to qualify as K001 wastes, I cannot envision what wastes would.”

Bird v. Stein

258 F.2d 168 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 9, 1958

We certainly cannot say it was clearly erroneous for the Court not to find that appellants established a resulting trust. … On the record we cannot say that those findings are clearly erroneous.

Refinery Holding Co. v. TRMI Holdings, Inc.

302 F.3d 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 22, 2002

In order to qualify as a third-party beneficiary, a party must establish both that (1) the contracting parties intended to confer some benefit to the third party, and (2) the contracting parties entered into the contract … (reiterating that party -18- seeking to enforce restrictive covenant must establish benefit to land).