Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case presented a constitutional challenge to Texas's statutory scheme, which does not allow 18- to 20-year-old adults to carry handguns in public. The court held that the state scheme withstood this challenge because the court was bound by a prior panel opinion of this court, NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives. Because plaintiffs Jennings and Harmon were now 21, the court remanded their claims to the district court with instructions to dismiss them as moot. The court also reversed the district court's ruling that the remaining plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge Texas's general criminal provision barring persons from carrying handguns in public. Finally, with respect to the general criminal provision, the court rendered, and with respect to the licensing law the court affirmed the district court, holding that the Texas scheme did not violate the Second or the Equal Protection Clause. View "Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of America Inc, et al. v. McCraw" on Justia Law

Elgin sought review of a final decision by DHHS upholding a ruling of an ALJ affirming a determination by the CMS that Elgin had violated certain safety requirements by serving "undercooked" eggs to its elderly residents. The court concluded it would not defer to DHHS's interpretation of the State Operations Manual (SOM); there was not substantial evidence to find that Elgin violated the SOM; and DHHS could not issue ambiguous interpretative documents and then interpret those in enforcement actions. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and set aside the finding of deficiency and resultant penalties. View "Elgin Nursing Center v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

This case concerned whether ILU had a duty to defend LaGen in an underlying suit filed against it by the EPA and the LDEQ for alleged Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401, and state environmental law violations. Reading all of the relevant provisions together and giving them their plain meaning, the underlying EPA suit included allegations and prayers for relief that could potentially result in covered remediation costs. The court rejected ILU's argument that injunctive relief was excluded from coverage by the Fines and Penalties exclusion. Because the court found that ILU had a duty to defend on other grounds, the court declined to decide on interlocutory appeal whether New York law allowed indemnification for CAA civil penalties. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's holding that under the policy ILU had a duty to defend LaGen in the underlying EPA and LDEQ suit. The court remanded for further proceedings and denied ILU's motion to dismiss LaGen's cross-appeal as moot. View "Louisiana Generating, L.L.C., et al v. Illinois Union Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, waste haulers that operate throughout the City, filed suit against the City claiming that its ordinance, which imposed a permit fee for the collection or disposal of waste within city limits, violated the dormant Commerce Clause by imposing an excessive burden on interstate waste haulers. The court concluded that the City's ordinance did not facially discriminate against out-of-state commerce or place excessive burdens on plaintiffs' interstate commerce. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that their alleged injuries fell within the zone of interests protected by the dormant Commerce Clause and the court declined to address their arguments because they lacked prudential standing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. View "Cibolo Waste, Inc., et al v. City of San Antonio" on Justia Law

Wellogix sued Accenture and others, alleging that they misappropriated its trade secrets regarding software that allowed oil companies to plan, procure, and pay for complex services online. The jury returned a verdict for Wellogix, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Accenture appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Accenture's motion for a judgment as a matter of law where reasonable jurors could find that Accenture misappropriated Wellogix's trade secrets and that there was sufficient evidence to support the compensatory damages award; by denying Accenture's motion for a new trial where the district court allowed Wellogix's software expert's testimony and allowed Wellogix to introduce into evidence patent-related documents; and by refusing to set aside the punitive damages award where there was sufficient evidence and testimony to support the jury's "malice" finding and the award was not grossly excessive. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against defendant, a deputy officer, following an altercation between the parties where plaintiff alleged claims of false arrest and excessive force. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims and state-law official immunity on plaintiff's state-law claims. The court held that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's false arrest claim because a reasonable officer at the scene would have thought that he had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, but not on plaintiff's excessive force claim. In addition, defendant was entitled to official immunity on plaintiff's state-law false arrest and imprisonment claim but not on plaintiff's state-law assault and battery claim. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and dismissed in part. View "Ramirez v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his federal guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to commit aggravated alien transporting, arguing principally that his plea lacked an adequate factual basis and that the district court misadvised him as to his sentencing exposure, rendering his plea involuntary. The court concluded that the district court's error in accepting his guilty plea, if any, was not plain, and that its admonishment regarding his sentencing exposure, though clear error, did not materially affect his decision to plead guilty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Alvarado-Casas" on Justia Law

This case involved the interplay between the Medicare Secondary Payer Statute (MSP), 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b), and Texas workers' compensation law. At issue was whether the MSP preempted a state law that required a workers' compensation claimant to obtain preauthorization from the relevant carrier before incurring certain medical expenses. The court held that it did not. The court concluded that Congress intended the MSP to complement, no supplant, state workers' compensation rules. This included the preauthorization requirement that plaintiff failed to meet before he filed suit. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that Medicare's conditional payment for his surgeries - which equated to a determination that his surgeries were medically unnecessary - rendered the state-law preauthorization requirement "moot" because preauthorization likewise depended on a showing of medical necessity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Caldera v. The Ins. Co. of the State of PA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of Mississippi Gulf Coast residents and property owners, alleged that emissions by energy companies contributed to global warming, which intensified Hurricane Katrina, which, in turn, damaged their property. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that res judicata barred plaintiffs' claims because the district court's judgment in Comer I was final and on the merits. Because true res judicata compelled good repose and barred plaintiffs' claims, the court need not address whether collateral estoppel applied or decide plaintiffs' other claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Comer v. Murphy Oil USA Inc, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense. Defendant contended on appeal, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines, that he was entitled to benefit from all of the changes wrought by the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-120, 124 Stat. 2372, such that the district court erred in declining to reduce his sentence below the original mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. The court previously held that where a defendant was subject to a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, the district court was not authorized to grant a reduction below that minimum. Here, the court joined its sister circuits in declining to treat a section 3582(c)(2) modification hearing as the equivalent of an original sentencing under Dorsey v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kelly" on Justia Law