Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
6.85s
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 27, 2002
Individual liability of Dunn and Shipper When, as here, officers have asserted qualified immunity, the first question is whether the plaintiffs have offered evidence establishing the violation of their constitutional … from liability by virtue of a qualified official immunity.”)
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedKenneth Lockamy v. Alberto Campos
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 6, 2011
Those remaining Defendants–Appellees were dismissed for qualified immunity, from which order Lockamy appealed in No. 10-10329. A jury held for Campos, from which verdict Lockamy appealed in No. 10-10644. … immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRoger E. Woolsey v. National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration
993 F.2d 516 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 1993
Section 61.58 establishes rules for periodic proficiency checks or flight checks which are similar to, but perhaps not identical with, provisions for periodic flight testing in Part 135. … Thus, the court implicitly credited the idea that a charter carrier can qualify as a common carrier even if it does not offer to every member of the public every available seat on its aircraft, but offers various package
Cited 26 timesPublishedUnited States v. Albert Louis Lipscomb, Cross-Appellee
299 F.3d 303 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 12, 2002
community development, farmer’s market infrastructure, emergency shelter, housing, community policing, airport and freeway improvements, arts development, pollution control, emergency management, interlibrary cooperation, child immunization … The law is actually much more realistic: Qualified jurors need not [] be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.
Cited 164 timesPublishedDixon v. International Harvester Company
754 F.2d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1985
that an expert's qualifications depend upon his knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, and the trial court is afforded the widest possible discretion in deciding whether a witness qualifies as an expert. … The admissibility of the ANSI standards, to the extent they are relevant, is clearly established in this circuit. See Alexander v. Conveyors & Dumpers, Inc., 731 F.2d 1221, 1229 (5th Cir.1984); Johnson v. William C.
Cited 0 timesPublished392 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2004
Thus, the court concluded, the plaintiff Guardsman had 18 established his right to holiday pay under § 2021(b)(3). … While new § 4316(b)(1)’s legislative history clearly reflects the intent to specifically guarantee reservists equality of on-leave benefits, the history of § 4311(a) shows an intent to continue and strengthen the anti-discrimination
Cited 52 timesPublished533 F.2d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 9, 1976
II. 42 A majority is in agreement apart from the question urged so well by Judge Rives' dissent on the immunity of Union dues from the reach of Section 701(j) that the substantive restraints of Section 701(j) forbidding religious … An examination of the legislative history of that Act clearly reveals that the purpose of this provision was to amend § 8(a)(3).
Cited 6 timesPublishedM.L. as next friend of A.L. v. El Paso Independent School District
400 F. App'x 947 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 8, 2010
Senatore, 18 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 1994) (noting that fee-shifting provisions cannot themselves confer subject matter jurisdiction, but must instead be read in conjunction with substantive statutes to establish proper jurisdiction … Therefore, because we have jurisdiction over the attorneys’ fees claim, we turn to whether the District qualifies as a “prevailing party.” B.
Cited 3 timesUnpublishedDana I. Kestenbaum v. Falstaff Brewing Corporation
575 F.2d 564 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 23, 1978
The content of the rule of reason in vertical restraint antitrust cases is not clearly established. Most litigation has involved practices held in United States v. … His writings and academic credentials qualify him as an expert in the field. Falstaff’s objections go to weight, not admissibility. See Barnes v. General Motors Corp., 547 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1977).
Cited 57 timesPublished606 F.2d 499 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 11, 1979
The sale of insurance is clearly a sale within the meaning of TIL. Stefanski v. Mainway Budget Plan, Inc., 456 F.2d 211 (5 Cir. 1972). … When and if these legislative bodies subsequently decide that insurance companies and agents should not enjoy this immunity, they will find an obedient ear in the Fifth Circuit.
Cited 18 timesPublishedAdams v. Daimlerchrysler Services NA
252 F. App'x 681 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 30, 2007
substantial evidence that she was “clearly better qualified” than the individuals who received the desired positions.7 We agree. … Adams has not presented evidence that she was clearly more qualified than Connerly and Fogg; if anything, the record shows the opposite.
Cited 8 timesUnpublished217 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 26, 2000
The district court overruled Norris’s objection, reasoning that Daubert’s teachings did not apply because Daubert only applied in determining whether an expert would be qualified to testify. … Because Norris has not established that the district court’s finding that his perjury caused the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources is clearly erroneous, his claim fails.
Cited 67 timesPublished237 F.3d 490 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 22, 2000
To establish a due process violation under Brady v. … However, the evidence is clearly sufficient to affirm both convictions.
Cited 0 timesPublishedClyde Boyett v. Redland Insurance Co.
741 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 27, 2014
The district court concluded, at least implicitly, that the statute=s differentiation between the machines that qualify to be the insured motor vehicle and those that qualify to be the uninsured motor vehicle was deliberate … Indeed, the minimum liability limits for UM coverage under Section 1295(1)(a)(i) are established by reference to La. Rev. Stat. § 32:900, part of the LMVSRL.
Cited 50 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 14, 2024
Although TAMU is correct that much of Reiss’s amended complaint discusses her failure to accommodate claims, we will address Reiss’s disability discrimination claims as her amended complaint clearly alleges such a claim. … To establish a disability discrimination claim under either the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA3 “in the context of a student excluded from an educational program, on summary judgment, a plaintiff must create a genuine dispute
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 2026
Morris’s claims were filed pursuant to the FTCA, which provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680. … Even a distinct cause of action is barred if the “underlying governmental conduct ‘essential’” to the claim “can be fairly read to ‘arise out of’ conduct that would establish” a misrepresentation claim. McNeily v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States v. John Emanuel Panzavecchia
446 F.2d 1293 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 2, 1971
Capasso, called as a witness for the Government, established these facts: On January 29, 1970, Capasso was a Special Agent for the United States Secret Service, assigned to New York City. … We think the instant case is clearly distinguishable from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . It is true that Capasso and the defendant stopped for each of them to have a cup of coffee.
Cited 8 timesPublishedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2026
Guerra, 38 F.4th 446, 448 (5th Cir. 2022) (dismissing an appeal of a qualified-immunity decision as untimely); Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 795–800, 109 S. … Ct. 2321, 2328 (1991) (“mere negligence” does not establish a constitutional violation); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844, 114 S.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States v. Augustus Charles Bobo, Jimmy Hancock, Jimmy Bruce Rowan, and Robert W. Kennington
586 F.2d 355 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 29, 1979
The record clearly established that it was the practice in Rowan’s organization to give people heroin for going along on buying trips. Record, vol. 4, at 154,165, 195-96, 365, 375, 381. … Their claims of prejudice are clearly without merit. The statement, as read to the jury, implicated Willet and two other unnamed persons.
Cited 90 timesPublishedUnited States v. Cornelius Wilson
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 14, 2015
. § 4B1.1, when Presley had only one prior qualifying conviction. … This conversation clearly establishes that Cornelius knew Lee converted the cocaine Cornelius sold to him.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna