Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

920 F.2d 322

Docket No. 90-2316.

Brown v. Glossip

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1991-01-10

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2002

8 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 902 · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act) · 46 U.S.C. § 10101 · 46 U.S.C. § 8501

Relies on Anderson v. Creighton · Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Michel v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1991-01-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Scott Lyford, Galveston County Legal Dept., Galveston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Gene Hagood, Britt, Todd, Hagood & Clements, Alvin, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, James DeAnda, Chief Judge.

Before GOLDBERG, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

This case, before us a second time, needs little if any attention. We need note only that under Shillingford v. Holmes, 634 F.2d 263 (5th Cir.1981), Brown's allegations are sufficient to controvert Glossip's qualified immunity defense. Consequently, the district court's denial of Glossip's motion to dismiss was entirely appropriate.

¶2

As a postscript, we add that our earlier opinion, Brown v. Glossip, 878 F.2d 871 (5th Cir.1989), should be interpreted as applying, consistent with Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3037, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the "clearly established" legal rules as of the date of Glossip's actions.

The judgment of the district court is

¶3

AFFIRMED.

/920/f2d/322 · .json · Public domain