Case law

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.

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.

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.

Lake Charles Stevedores, Inc. v. Professor Vladimir Popov Mv, in Rem

199 F.3d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 23, 1999

The district court’s factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Nerco, 74 F.3d at 668 . … We must therefore undertake to determine whether Broussard qualifies as any of the entities listed in § 31341(a). Brous-sard is clearly not the owner of the Vessel, or its master.

U.S. Small Business Administration v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co.

874 F.2d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 7, 1989

The entity also established a corporate checking account. Regular corporate tax returns were filed. … We may assume that the bankruptcy court’s finding that the corporation did not own the equipment is not clearly erroneous.

Mims v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

590 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 9, 2009

In order to qualify for the discount, Rule R-8 requires that the pre- existing mortgage (a) be fully taken up, renewed, extended or satisfied, and (b) have been previously insured (with lender’s title insurance). … In other words, the district court concluded in the motion to dismiss that to establish a RESPA violation, the plaintiff in each individual case must establish that the agent from whom he purchased the policy charged an unreasonable

Teamsters Local Union 612 v. Helton

413 F.2d 1380 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 22, 1969

* makes application for reemployment within ninety days after he is relieved from such training and service * * *, * * * * * (B) if such position was in the employ of a private employer, such person shall— (i) if still qualified … The union makes an argument that the findings of the district court should not be reviewed against a “clearly erroneous” standard, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), because the trial court stated his view of the evidence before the union

Clarence Enochs v. Lampasas County

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 17, 2011

In any case, the Supreme Court’s instruction for district courts to “guard against forum manipulation” is explicitly qualified for situations such as this one, where other considerations weigh heavily in favor of remand. … Only Enochs’s Texas Government Code § 614 claim requires interpreting Texas law without guidance from the Texas Supreme Court (the § 1701.456(b) argument can be resolved without addressing the sovereign-immunity-waiver issue

Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp.

59 F.3d 1496 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 1995

Despite his injury, Guevara continued to work on 2 the vessel for a period of four months, apparently to qualify for union benefits. … issue of punitive damages was before the Court in Vaughan and was clearly rejected by the majority.

United States v. Robert Beam Runyan, United States of America v. Robert Beam Runyan

275 F.3d 449 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2001

In addition, Runyan clearly exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy in both sets of materials in question. … As such factual determinations are clearly within the province of the district court, a remand to that court is required.

The Curtis Publishing Company v. Colonel T. B. Birdsong

360 F.2d 344 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 10, 1966

The second question is whether those activities in the State would have been sufficient under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to establish those minimum contacts, ties and relations with the State of Alabama … Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States.

Holberg v. Guerrero

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 14, 2026

rule in that way as an unreasonable application of clearly established law. … Holberg alleges that the state habeas court misapplied the Supreme Court’s clearly established precedent in Brady 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

Adrian G. Duplantier v. United States

606 F.2d 654 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 12, 1979

The district court was clearly correct, therefore, in holding that Judge Tamm and the Judicial Ethics Committee perform “a judicial administrative function.” … Clearly, the financial disclosure requirements are strong medicine and are not entirely palatable to the members of the federal judiciary.

Hayes v. Diaz

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

While we have jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment claimed pursuant to qualified immunity, see Lukan v. N. … Because we determine whether a plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right as part of our qualified immunity analysis, we can address Defendants’ Heck contention. See Wells v.

United States v. Alkheqani

78 F.4th 707 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 17, 2023

Alkheqani maintains that the district court clearly erred in weighing this factor in favor of voluntariness. … We find that the district court’s conclusion was not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Charles Bolton

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 23, 2018

Accordingly, the memorandum does not qualify as Brady material. Swenson, 894 F.3d at 683. … Thus, it did not qualify as Brady material. Swenson, 894 F.3d at 683.

Estella Martinez v. Walgreen Company

935 F.3d 396 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2019

The Court of Appeals concluded that because pharmacists qualify as healthcare providers under Texas law, the Texas Supreme Court’s negligent-treatment and negligent-misdiagnosis cases were “instructive” in concluding that … They disclaim reliance on statute to create tort liability where none would otherwise exist, arguing solely that statutory prohibitions help to more clearly define the standard of care Walgreens owed.

Vulcan Materials Company v. United States

446 F.2d 690 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 25, 1971

The organization and reorganization expenses *695 of the constituent corporations in the case at bar were clearly capital in nature. … We reject the government’s invitation to decide this appeal on the clearly erroneous doctrine. Bay Sound Transp. Co. v. United States, 410 F.2d 505 (5 Cir. 1969).

United States v. Armstrong

550 F.3d 382 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 21, 2008

See Fuchs, 467 F.3d at 900-01 (reviewing for plain error and holding there is no clearly established Fifth Circuit law requiring that the Government prove no “legitimate medical purpose” in a § 841(a)(1) prosecution). … [T]he qualifying condition of the offense, i.e., the element of behavior beyond professional practice . . . .”)).