green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
56.6 score
“a chief justification for our general rule against permitting new issues to be raised on appeal is the concern 'of the public interest' for protecting the finality of judgment.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cruz v. Cervantez
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
plain' is synonymous with 'clear' or, equivalently, 'obvious.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Transverse v. IA Wireless Srv
ur court has adopted the practice of reviewing unpreserved error in a civil case using the plain-error standard of review.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Randolph A. Lopez, D/B/A Brown Hand Center and D/B/A Brown Medical Center v. Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P., D/B/A Austin American-Statesman
a chief justification for our general rule against permitting new issues to be raised on appeal is the concern 'of the public interest' for protecting the finality of judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Miller
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Even if we were to consider this newly raised argument on plain error review, see Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997), Foley’s purported deviation from a policy is insufficient to support a failure- to-protect claim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jackson
Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alli Good Govt v. Coaltn Better Govt
Decades ago, “our Court . . . adopted the practice of reviewing unpreserved error in a civil case using the plain-error standard of review.” Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Sec. & Exch.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc.
E.g., Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Owens v. Richard Stalder
Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Spyridon Contogouris v. WestPac Resources
“Plain error review in civil cases has always been considered to be an extraordinary remedy for use only in the exceptional case.” Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1133 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Contogouris v. Pacific West Resources, L.L.C.
“Plain error review in civil cases has always been considered to be an extraordinary remedy for use only in the exceptional case.” Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1133 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Fema Trailer
In any event, given the admittedly res nova nature of the questions presented, we conclude that any error could not be “clear” or “obvious.” Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1124 (5th Cir. 1997). 8 As noted by the district court, Appellants also failed to address the issue that the “willful misconduct” exclusion set forth in Miss.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Fema Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation
In any event, given the admittedly res nova nature of the questions presented, we conclude that any error could not be "clear” or "obvious.” Crawford, v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1124 (5th Cir. 1997). 8 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pettis v. BOSARGE DIVING, INC.
The Fifth Circuit has noted that “[i]n Gautreaux , we held that ‘nothing in the text or structure of the FELA-Jones Act legislation suggests that the standard of care to be attributed to either an employer or an employee is anything different than ordinary prudence under the circumstances.’ ” Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co. Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1125 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Gautreaux, 107 F.3d at 338 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nottingham Construction Co. v. City of Waveland
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Under plain error review, “we must determine (1) if there was error, (2) if that error was plain, (3) if the error affects substantial rights, and (4) whether allowing that error to stand seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1124 (emphasis added).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bias v. Woods
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
We may not set aside a district court’s factual finding unless it is clearly erroneous, see Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc. 131 F.3d 1120, 1124 (5th Cir.1997) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)), and based on my review of the record, I see no clear error here.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cooper v. USA
(2×)
When a party fails to offer at least some cogent explanation for an objection, any claimed error is forfeited.7 Where an argument has been forfeited, we address it only under “ex- ceptional circumstances.” Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997). “[O]ur Court has adopted the practice of reviewing unpreserved error in a civil case using the plain-error standard of review,” id., by which “we must determine (1) if there was error, (2) if that error was plain, (3) if the error affects substantial rights, and (4) whether allowing that error to stand seriously …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stiward v. United States
To hold otherwise would unjustly reward unreasonable conduct and would fault seamen only for their gross negligence, which was not the contemplation of Congress.” Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1125 (5th Cir.1997); quoting Gautreaux, 107 F.3d at 339 . 57.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. 4.27 Acres of Land
See United States v. Jimenez, 256 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that "where the theory underlying the basis for an appeal is different from the one raised in the lower court, 'plain error’ should be the standard of review”); Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997) (reviewing unpreserved error in a civil case using the plain-error standard).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gaudet
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
We review an “unpreserved error in a civil case using the plain-error standard of review.” Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hurt v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1129 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinets v. Corning Cable System
In evaluating whether 4 See Christiansburg, 434 U.S. at 421 . 5 Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. 7 injustice would inure in this case, we “evaluate the blameworthiness of the party’s failure to raise the issue below.”9 Although we permit litigants appearing pro se latitude in raising new issues on appeal, Durkin “is an attorney and should know when issues should be raised.”10 Corning’s motion for summary judgment made clear that it was seeking sanctions against Durkin as well as Martinets.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Barnhart
See Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir.2000); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1424 (5th Cir.1996)(en banc)-, see also Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123-4 (5th Cir.1997); and, 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Castellano v. Fragozo
(2×)
Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1133 (5th Cir.1997) (noting that "we must keep in mind 'this court’s longstanding rule that reversal for plain error is 'not a run-of-the-mill remedy' and will occur only in exceptional circumstances to avoid a miscarriage of justice'") (quoting Highlands, 27 F.3d at 1032 ). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lawson v. Dallas County
Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1124 (5th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lawson v. Dallas County
Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1124 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hugh Von Meshack Lawayne Thomas Linda Parker Terrence Ian Hodges, Also Known as Guda
We decline to exercise our discretion in this manner here because Hodges can show no meaningful benefit he would receive from vacating this sentence, 19 cf. United States v. Williamson, 183 F.3d 458, 464 (5th Cir.1999) (“[L]eaving Williamson incarcerated for 30 years when he should have been sentenced to no more than 15 under existing precedent, especially when we gave the benefit of the legal rule to others appealing their convictions during that time, seriously would affect the fairness, integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings by undermining the rule of law.”), and becaus…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Barthelemy v. Phillips Petroleum
Michael and the 1 Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1124 (5th Cir. 1997). 2 Swamprat-- passed 75 feet off the port side of the two vessels.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Williamson
Cf. Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1129 (5th Cir.1997) (holding simplicity of correcting plain error on remand favors exercising discretion to correct it). 10 .
cited
Cited "see"
Apodaca v. Legard
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 112324 (5th Cir. 1997).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Deshetler
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. Touhami
(2×)
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Law Funder, L.L.C. v. Sergio Munoz, Jr.
(2×)
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Law Funder, L.L.C. v. Sergio Munoz, Jr.
(2×)
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co. , 131 F.3d 1120 , 1123 (5th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kenneth Crissup v. Thomas Greenwell
(2×)
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123-29 (5th Cir.1997); Forbush v. J.C.
cited
Cited "see"
Fonteneaux v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.1997) (explaining that we review “unpreserved error in a civil case using the plain-error standard of review”).
cited
Cited "see"
F. Autery v. GlaxoSmithKline, L.L.C.
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.1997) (applying plain-error review to unpreserved error in a civil case).
cited
Cited "see"
Alaniz v. Zamora-Quezada
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.1997). 44 .
cited
Cited "see"
SeaQuest Diving, LP v. S&J Diving, Inc. (In Re SeaQuest Diving, LP)
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.1997) (applying the plain-error standard of review to unpreserved error in a civil case).
cited
Cited "see"
Maldonado v. Dickerson
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.1997); cf. Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 919 (5th Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC v. Harris County Toll Road Authority
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.1997) ("more recently our Court has adopted the practice of reviewing unpreserved error in a civil case using the plain-error standard of review”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Delgado v. Reef Resort Ltd.
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.1997) Under plain error review we reverse only where there is “error that is plain and that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Texaco Inc. v. Duhé
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.1997) (courts may review an issue of law raised for the first time on appeal in "exceptional circumstances”). 19 .
cited
Cited "see"
Robert E. Rhoades, Trustee for the Firstbanc Savings Association Employee Stock Ownership Plan v. Michael E. Casey, Michael E. Casey, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant v. The Texas Savings and Loan Department Kathy Barnes Vivian Wechie, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, Defendant-Counter Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, Us Department of the Treasury v. Michael E. Casey
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1124 (5th Cir. 1997). 35 A district court has the authority to award reasonable attorney's fees in interpleader actions.
cited
Cited "see"
Rhoades v. Casey
See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1124 (5th Cir.1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Bruin Portfolio, LLC v. Leicht (In Re Leicht)
See Davis v. Davis (In re Davis), 105 F.3d 1017 (5th Cir.1997)(describing operation of § 522(c) vis-a-vis state exemption provisions), rehearing granted en banc, 131 F.3d 1120 (5th Cir.1997). 4 3.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnson v. East Baton Rouge Federation of Teachers
See McGarity v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 870 (5th Cir. 1999) (unpublished); see also Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120 (5th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a court “review[s'J unpre-served error in a civil case using the plain-error standard of review”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnson v. Barnhart
See Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir.2000); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1424 (5th Cir.1996)(e% banc); see also Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123-4 (5th Cir.1997); and, 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. v. Lindsey
See Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir.2000); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1424 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc); see also Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123-24 (5th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Teitel v. University of Houston Board of Regents
See Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir.2000); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1424 (5th Cir.l996)(en banc); see also Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123-4 (5th Cir.1997); and, 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Myers v. Barnhart
See Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir.2000); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1424 (5th Cir.1996)(en banc); see also Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123-4 (5th Cir.1997); and, 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 2 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Thomas Cullen DAVIS; Karen Joyce Davis, Debtors. Sandra DAVIS, Appellant,
v.
Thomas Cullen DAVIS, Appellee
v.
Thomas Cullen DAVIS, Appellee
95-11112.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 17, 1997.
St. Clair Newbern, III, Fort Worth, TX, for Appellant., Ronald Ray Payne, Hesse & Jones, Dallas, TX, for Appellee.
Politz, King, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Duhé, Wiener, Barksdale, Garza, Demoss, Benavides, Stewart, Parker, Dennis.
Published
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
BY THE COURT:A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en bane with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.