Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Mckesson v. Doe, 592 U.S. 1 (2020), [1] was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that temporarily halted a lawsuit by a police officer against an activist associated with the Black Lives Matter movement and instructed the lower federal court (the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit) to seek clarification of state law from the Louisiana Supreme Court. [2]
The Fifth Circuit gained appellate jurisdiction over the United States District Court for the Canal Zone. On October 1, 1981, under Pub. L. 96–452, the Fifth Circuit was split: Alabama, Georgia, and Florida were moved to the new Eleventh Circuit. On March 31, 1982, the Fifth Circuit lost jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Zone, which was ...
The Fifth Circuit, writing before the Supreme Court had decided Mt. Healthy, had been in much the same position with regards to the factual record with regards to the Supreme Court in Mt. Healthy. "while the District Court found that petitioner's 'criticism' was the 'primary' reason for the School District's failure to rehire her, it did not ...
Castañeda v. Pickard; Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Full case name: Elizabeth and Katherine Castañeda, by their father and next friend, Roy C. Castañeda, et al v. Mrs. A. M. "Billy" Pickard, President, Raymondville Independent School District, Board of Trustees, et al
A federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board violates an antidiscrimination statute listed in 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1) should seek judicial review in district court, not the Federal Circuit, regardless whether the MSPB decided her case on procedural grounds or on the merits.
Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (and together known as Twiqbal), Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet.
Oral arguments on the appeal were held March 3, 2020, before a 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals at Tulane Law School in New Orleans. [16] A decision by the panel was issued on August 13, 2020, reversing the District Court judgment on the grounds that it amounted to overturning the Supreme Court's precedent from Rostker , which ...