Case law

Ralston Oil and Gas Company v. Gensco, Inc., Gensco, Inc. v. Jack Ralston Oil & Gas Company

706 F.2d 685 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 9, 1983

No specific finding was made on this point, and we clearly cannot make such a factual determination. … App.1959), Ralston qualifies as an agent which could recover for absent principals.

Omega Hospital, L.L.C. v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co.

592 F. App'x 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2014

When Congress enacted FEHBA it charged the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) with negotiating contracts with qualified insurance carriers to provide health benefit plans for federal employees. … Moreover, with respect to Omega’s argument that Blue Cross could not assert a colorable federal defense, such as sovereign immunity, we note that courts have rejected similar arguments.

Cadles Grassy Meadow v. Goldner

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2008

The state’s argument relies on the assumption that individuals such as the Goldners can establish presence in Texas for tolling purposes by appointing resident agents. … The tolling provision was “in- tended to protect [domestic creditors] from the inconvenience and loss, to which they would be exposed by the absence of their debtors and consequent immunity of the latter from process and

United States v. Trejo

610 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 29, 2010

Otherwise, every mere transportation of drug money in this manner would also qualify as a money laundering offense. See generally United States v. … in note 8, involving promotion in the context of drug trafficking, offers few clues that the 12 We have also found plain error under “current law” where the law at the time of trial was settled but is “clearly

Streber v. Hunter

221 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 4, 2000

Here, once Cook’s testimony established negligence and breach of fiduciary duties, lay testimony was sufficient to establish causation. … Given that Hunter was well-aware of the sisters’ plans to invest conservatively, this was clearly foreseeable.

Hyde v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

697 F.2d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 1983

William Marmande, M.D. established that the plaintiff weighed one hundred fifty-five pounds at the time of the accident. … This is clearly not the present law in Louisiana. (Emphasis added.)

Farber v. Crestwood Midstream Partners L.P.

863 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2017

But then the Devlin Court came along and concluded that it should carve out a limited exception to this well-established rule: “[N]onnamed class members . . . who have objected in a timely manner to approval of the settlement … In short, what we have decided today is consistent with the application of Devlin to nonparty objectors. 12 Duggan fails to qualify for the Devlin exception, and, because Duggan is also a nonparty to the judgment

Texas Employers' Insurance Association v. Leroy Jackson

862 F.2d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 13, 1988

More specifically, the Court has clearly held that the only exceptions to section 2283 are those three expressly stated therein. … This principle has particular applicability when claim preclusion is sought to be established on the basis of a prior administrative proceeding.

Bridges v. Methodist Hospital

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2025

the Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” 13 Under the state action prong, “[a] private entity can qualify … First, the Former Employees do not analyze whether sovereign immunity applies, which may bar the claims.

United States v. Jo Ann Williams

622 F.2d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 1980

This rule is well established even where the statute under which the arrest was made is after declared unconstitutional.”). … The announcement of the rule as an alternative ground for decision in a case where all the court agrees on the result virtually immunizes this case from Supreme Court review.

Hope Medical Group For Women v. Edwards

63 F.3d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 17, 1995

Title XIX establishes the Medicaid program, a jointly funded federal-state program designed to provide medical care for qualified individuals "whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical … The plain meaning of a statute's language governs its construction unless so doing would clearly violate congressional intent or lead to absurd results. See United States v.

Panotex Pipe Line Company v. Phillips Petroleum Company and Diamond Shamrock Corporation

457 F.2d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1972

Assuming arguendo intent and a relevant market, a dangerous probability of success is clearly lacking. See Cliff Food Stores, Inc. v. Kroger, Inc., 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 203, 206-208 . … They established a basis for a business judgment resting on the idea that a certain amount of production was necessary to warrant the expense of extending the pipelines.

Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. Dennis J. York, Colonel

761 F.2d 1044 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 31, 1985

Instead, they assert that the Agency should have reviewed and commented on the 1981 revised EIS, which included data concerning the establishment of the Tensas National Wildlife Refuge. … Avoyelles III, therefore, is clearly relevant to the accuracy of the Corps’ assumption that the land in question will be cleared regardless of the Project.

SEC v. Novinger

40 F.4th 297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 12, 2022

Finally, it observed that “jurisdictional and notice failings . . . define void judgments that qualify for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).” Id. at 273 (emphasis added). … The movant “bears the burden of establishing that changed circumstances warrant relief.” Horne, 557 U.S. at 447.

Makric Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner

683 F. App'x 282 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 27, 2017

Appellant fails to show that the Tax Court was clearly erroneous in its determination that Makric did not meet the high standard. … In this case, interested testimony and an ambiguous email are insufficient to establish clear error on the part of the Tax Court.

Harris v. Double G Coatings

114 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 7, 1997

In sum, our record review convinces us that Harris was not “clearly better qualified” than Bagwell for the job. … Our conclusion that Harris was not “clearly better qualified” than Bagwell does not end our consideration of Harris’s claim, as it is possible that Harris may be able to establish discriminatory intent by other evidence

United States v. Phillips

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 9, 2000

Smith, 203 F.3d 884, 891 (5th Cir. 2000) (finding the enhancement appropriate for someone whose “statement went far beyond merely denying her own involvement or refusing to provide information, which would not qualify … As this other conduct was neither the grounds for the enhancement nor is clearly established in the record, and because the grounds the district court relied on are incorrect, we disagree that an appeal of the enhancement

In re: Endeavor Mar

234 F.3d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 11, 2000

This assertion, however, is contrary to clearly established law. In British Transport Comm’n v. … With respect to the second prong of Chandris, as previously noted, it is undisputed that the FRANK L qualifies as a “vessel in navigation.”

Garner v. Engolio

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

The Garners have not produced any evidence to create a genuine issue of fact that either Pennington, Mendoza, or Patin is not entitled to qualified immunity. … The Garners did not show that any of the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991).

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,033 James L. Shores, Jr., as of the Estate of Clarence E. Bishop, Jr., Etc. v. Jerald H. Sklar

647 F.2d 462 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 26, 1981

This interpretation of Rule 10b-5 is a reasonable one, for the aim of the rule in cases such as this is to qualify, as be *475 tween insiders and outsiders, the doctrine of caveat emptor — not to establish a scheme of investors … sufficiently established to make out a prima facie case.