Case law

Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

314 F.3d 735 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 31, 2002

According to the EPA, when considering all of the CAA's pertinent language, Congress clearly did not intend the unduly restrictive and punitive reading that Petitioners urge on this Court. … Circuit noted that the CAA expressly gave the EPA 14 to 18 months after the submittal deadline to approve or disapprove these SIPs and to determine whether a State qualified for certain exemptions. Id. at 1136.

Ctr for Biological Diversity v. Ken Salazar

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2012

The DOI “is authorized to grant to the highest responsible qualified bidder or bidders by competitive bidding, under regulations promulgated in advance, any oil and gas lease on submerged lands of the [OCS].” … Considering first whether § 1349(c)(3)(A) “clearly states” that its participation requirement is “jurisdictional,” see Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 515, we conclude that it clearly does not.

Badon v. R J R Nabisco Inc

224 F.3d 382 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2000

It is not entirely evident to us that Media clearly resolves the issue. … The maker of Media's vehicle is a foreign [German] corporation, not qualified to do business in the United States.

Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R.

200 F.3d 341 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 20, 2000

that he repeat the first grade, preliminary evaluations of his need for special education indicated that he did not qualify … The court agreed with provisions of the IEP were followed,” even HISD with respect to the AP services, though though the petitioner had clearly demonstrated it did not carefully analyze the issue

Janos Farkas v. GMAC Mortgage, L.L.C.

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 20, 2014

As this court has concluded, “[b]ecause MERS is a book-entry system, it qualifies as a mortgagee.” Martins v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2013). … ‘a presumption . . . that parties contracted for themselves,’ which applies ‘unless it clearly appears that they intended a third party to benefit from the contract.’”

United States v. Jerry Wayne Tilley, and Susan Wells Tilley, Tommy Ross Anderson and Sarah Jane Anderson

18 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 11, 1994

In Halper , the Supreme Court established the analytical methodology that will guide our determination of whether the civil forfeiture of the proceeds from illegal drug sales in this case served a punitive purpose, or a wholly … amount of the sanction is “overwhelmingly disproportionate” to the damages caused by the wrongful conduct and thus “bears no rational relation to the goal of compensating the government for its loss, but rather appears to qualify

United States v. Rexdual Robinson

980 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 13, 2020

“A court abuses its discretion when the court makes an error of law or bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v. … Section 3553(a)(4) directs that a district court, “in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider . . . the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for . . . the applicable category

St. Bernard General Hospital, Inc. v. Hospital Service Association of New Orleans, Inc.

712 F.2d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 22, 1983

These charges are not so clearly per se violations of the antitrust laws. See id. at 51-57 , 97 S.Ct. at 2558-61 . … See Rev.Rul. 69-545, 1969-2 Cum.Bull. 117 (hospitals may, under some circumstances, qualify for tax exemptions under I.R.C. §§ 170, 501(c)(3) without providing charitable care); Simon v.

Dutta v. Pistenmaa

107 F. App'x 409 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 12, 2004

Pistenmaa, M.D., appeals the district court’s denial in part of his summary judgment motion asserting a qualified immunity defense to the First Amendment retaliation claims of Suresh Dutta, M.D. … Because the district court’s decision falls into a non-appealable category, i.e., a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the defendant engaged in conduct that violated a clearly established constitutional right

Gulf Restoration Network, Inc. v. Ken Salazar

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2012

The DOI “is authorized to grant to the highest responsible qualified bidder or bidders by competitive bidding, under regulations promulgated in advance, any oil and gas lease on submerged lands of the [OCS].” … Considering first whether § 1349(c)(3)(A) “clearly states” that its participation requirement is “jurisdictional,” see Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 515, we conclude that it clearly does not.

Gulf Restoration Network, Inc. v. Ken Salazar

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2012

The DOI “is authorized to grant to the highest responsible qualified bidder or bidders by competitive bidding, under regulations promulgated in advance, any oil and gas lease on submerged lands of the [OCS].” … Considering first whether § 1349(c)(3)(A) “clearly states” that its participation requirement is “jurisdictional,” see Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 515, we conclude that it clearly does not.

United States v. Wesley A. Caldwell, Jr.

820 F.2d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 26, 1987

We review the district court’s finding regarding whether the IRS used fraud, trickery, or deceit under the clearly erroneous standard. … We therefore hold that the district court’s finding that Caldwell did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the IRS agents used fraud, trickery, or deceit in gaining the interview with him was not clearly erroneous

Hyde v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.

511 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 20, 2007

to consider the merits of the defense before proceeding further.22 18 915 F.2d at 177-80. 19 Id. at 178-79. 20 874 F.2d 984 (5th Cir. 1989) (statute of limitations clearly … safe products for the public” and “deterring the manufacture and distribution of unsafe products within the state.”51 The court also found it “significant . . . that New Jersey does not have a statute of repose that qualifies

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,213 Hill York Corporation v. American International Franchises, Inc., Gurn H. Freeman

448 F.2d 680 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 15, 1971

If the sale to a single person, firm or corporation does not qualify for the exemption, then no private offering exemption ever came into being or existed. … This clearly negates the close-knit arrangement among friends and acquaintances that afforded the private offering exemption in Woodward v. Wright, 266 F.2d 108 (10th Cir. 1959) and Campbell v.

Green v. Johnson

116 F.3d 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 1997

Because the State of Texas has not yet qualified for the expedited procedures governing habeas petitions in capital cases, see Carter v. … We do not believe that the state court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous, nor do we find any legal error. VIII.

United States v. Harris

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 26, 2010

Even though there was no direct support for the finding in the record, we found that it was not clearly erroneous for two reasons. … Conner, 537 F.3d 480, 489 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that, under language of §2B1.1, ‘actual loss’ must be suffered to qualify as a ‘victim’ under § 2B1.1(b)(2)).”

Joy Niday Colson v. Paul Grohman Mike Hogg Jack Roberts Stella Roberts City of Pearland

174 F.3d 498 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 26, 1999

Formal reprimands, however, do qualify as adverse employment actions and, when given in retaliation for First Amendment activity, are actionable. See Harris v. Victoria Indep. Sch. … The defendants argue that she cannot establish at least two such elements: that a civil proceeding was instituted against her and that she suffered special damages.

United States v. Wilkes

946 F.2d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 12, 1991

argues that the “Service Center Notice,” which was the only document the estate admits to having received from the IRS, provided neither a description of the “error alleged” nor “an explanation thereof,” thereby failing to qualify … Rodriguez and Young establish the principle that as a taxpayer makes payment against a tax assessment, the assessment is extinguished in the amount paid and cannot be revived by the IRS’s giving the taxpayer an unsolicited

Ridgely v. Fed Emer Mgmt Agency

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 30, 2008

In general, FEMA may provide assistance to individuals and households who qualify for such assistance under section 408 of the Stafford Act and this subpart. … These four elements present mixed questions of law and fact; we leave factual findings undisturbed unless clearly erroneous, but review legal conclusions de novo. Guy Carpenter & Co. v.

Arthur Brown, Jr. v. Rick Thaler, Director

684 F.3d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 2012

After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not find debatable the district court’s conclusion that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law on the … Brown’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is governed by the clearly established law set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).