Case law

Coliseum Square Association, Inc., Smart Growth for Louisiana, Louisiana Landmarks Society, Inc., Historic Magazine Row Association and the Urban Conservancy, Inc. v. Alphonso Jackson, Etc., Alphonso Jackson, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Housing Authority of New Orleans, Coliseum Square Association, Inc., Smart Growth for Louisiana, Louisiana Landmarks Society, Inc., Historic Magazine Row Association and the Urban Conservancy, Inc. v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, an Agency of the State of Louisiana, Alphonso Jackson, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Historic Restoration, Inc., Intervenor-Appellee

465 F.3d 215 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 2006

Furthermore, "an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts, even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive." Marsh v. … Unless the district court clearly abused its discretion in determining that plaintiffs' motion neither established a manifest error of law or fact nor presented newly discovered evidence, the district court's ruling should

United States v. Caroline Njoku

737 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 2, 2013

We accept for the sake of argument that the evidence in the DME case conclusively established an agreement existed. … Echols, who arguably was more clearly involved in the fraud. The district court considered the evidence and ultimately assessed the loss at $401,000.

Huang v. Huang

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 2021

The Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from suit in federal court absent a waiver of this immunity. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984). … As previously established, Appellant has not pleaded facts indicating that he spoke to a matter of public concern and thus has not asserted a plausible First Amendment claim.

United States v. Smith

7 F.3d 1164 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 10, 1993

Instead, it dismissed Count Two with prejudice, finding that the substantive defense of outrageous government conduct was established as a matter of law because Holliman and Collins should have known that Smith "in discussing … On appeal, however, the government does not take the position that the district court's finding that Smith was in "custody" during the interview in Collins' office is clearly erroneous.

United States v. Garza

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 2025

Case: 24-40425 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2025 No. 24-40425 have gone untreated in prison and that the conditions qualify as extraordinary and compelling … In addition to determining that Garza had failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons, the district court reiterated its previous determination that a sentence reduction was not warranted based on its assessment

United States v. Tomblin

46 F.3d 1369 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 24, 1995

(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity … Moreover, the instruction clearly required the jury to focus on Tomblin's intent.

Tittle v. Raines

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

Once the defendant moves for summary judgment on qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to come forward with proper summary judgment evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that qualified immunity is lacking … The defendants acted with probable cause to cause the case against Tittle to go forward and they are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Tittle’s malicious prosecution claim.

Chiles v. Davis

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 1996

We first consider Chiles’s objection to the court’s finding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Even if this were not sufficient to raise the defense, the joint pretrial order specified that the defendants were claiming qualified immunity.5 Chiles makes no other objections to the finding of qualified immunity

General Warehousemen and Helpers Local 767, Affiliated With International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Standard Brands, Inc., General Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 767, Affiliated With International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Plaintiffs- Appellants- Cross v. Standard Brands, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross

560 F.2d 700 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 1977

Teamsters Local 959, 507 F.2d 872, 878-79 (9th Cir. 1974). 29 Admittedly, the propriety of a damage award is not clearly established. Some doubt might be cast upon it by Carey v. … Apparently the only contract violation which the arbitrators sought to remedy was the failure to apply the OCAW contract to the new operations and the court viewed this violation as immunized by the NLRB decision.

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Daniel, Attorney General of Texas Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. v. Daniel, Attorney General of Texas

180 F.2d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 1950

It is clear that the Railroads do not seek here to establish an interest in property or funds belonging to the State, nor do they call for an assertion of the official authority of the State in their behalf as referred to … The construction of the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission in such matters pursuant to the Act of Congress and pursuant to the commerce clause clearly presents a question of which the Federal Courts have original

Dry Clime Lamp Corporation v. G. L. Edwards

389 F.2d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 1968

But the respective interests are not immaterial as a matter of law to anyone concerned, and if any party desires determination and establishment thereof it is entitled to that in the district court. 30 The numerous other … not deprived the defendant altogether of his right to protect the property, they have conditioned the exercise of that constitutional right upon his willingness to sacrifice an equally inviolable right, that of remaining immune

Raba v. U.S.

977 F.2d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 1992

We review these findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Gustin v. United States, 876 F.2d 485, 491 (5th Cir.1989). A. … We generally take a "broad view of who qualifies as a responsible person." Wood, 808 F.2d at 415. See also Turnbull v. United States, 929 F.2d 173, 178 (5th Cir.1991); Morgan v.

Fleming v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc.

707 F.2d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 9, 1983

discrimination practices”; and that Fleming is an adequate class representative since her interest in not being discriminated against because of her sex is coextensive with the interests of the class and that the attorney is qualified … The plaintiff in a class action suit has the burden of establishing the prerequisites of Rule 23. Patterson v. General Motors Corp., 631 F.2d 476, 481 (7th Cir.1980); Taylor v.

Lisa Coleman v. Rick Thaler, Director

716 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2013

established law involves two distinct inquiries. … His affidavit reads, in pertinent part: Within two weeks of my appointment to represent [Lisa] . . ., we had a defense team in place that consisted of two death penalty qualified counsel; . . . an

Terry v. Federal Bur of Prisons

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2023

he has established an adverse employment action. … For these same reasons, Terry cannot raise a genuine issue of material fact by showing that he was “clearly better qualified” than the selected candidates. See Walther v.

United States v. Storm

36 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 19, 1994

entering into several assumption agreements; however, contrary to his earlier statements, he did not admit any culpability and asserted that he “believed that [he] could sell these homes by finding a purchaser who could not qualify … Recently, the Supreme Court has opined that “if a defendant objects to a sentence enhancement resulting from her trial testimony, a district court must review the evidence and make independent findings necessary to establish

United States v. Samuel Elias-Lujan

602 F. App'x 216 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 22, 2015

and the reduction was denied because Elias did not qualify for it due to his criminal history. … Finally, to the extent that Elias argues that the plea agreement or appeal waiver is invalid because the agreement lacked consideration, he cannot establish that the district court plainly erred in accepting the agreement

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Bank of Coushatta

930 F.2d 1122 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 1991

The institution may be required to restrict its growth; dispose of any loan or asset involved; rescind agreements or contracts; employ qualified offi *1132 cers or employees; or “take such other action as the banking agency … The Board was clearly on notice of the directive. Two cover letters, discussed supra, were addressed to it; and the response to the notice of intent was through the Board’s counsel.

Henderson Clay Products v. United States

377 F.2d 349 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 11, 1967

The Regulation does not allow the indiscriminate use of any price of a product of like kind and grade, but requires the price to be representative; ‘representative’ should be interpreted to qualify the entire phrase ‘market … A quick glance at these proposed regulations indicates, however, that the quotations from the regulations stop short of that particular section which most clearly fits the circumstances of the appellant in this case.

Freeman Ex Rel. Estate of Vann v. Clarke County

620 F. App'x 223 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 7, 2015

McLendon filed a motion to stay pending discovery related to her qualified immunity defense. The parties engaged in discovery related to qualified immunity. … “We review a district court’s award of attorney’s fees for an abuse of discretion . . . and we accept the factual findings upon which the district court bases its award . . . unless they are clearly erroneous.” Brady v.