green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
64.7 score
“ur standard of review with respect to a jury verdict is especially deferential.”
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
MGMTL v. Strategic Technology
ur standard of review with respect to a jury verdict is especially deferential.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hobbs v. EVO
it was a pure jury question whether to believe the employees or the employer.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trinseo v. Harper
P. 50(a)(1)). “[B]ut our standard of review with respect to a jury verdict is especially deferential.” Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation modified).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Harmon v. Collier
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
DISCUSSION We review the denial of a “motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, ‘but our standard of review with respect to a jury verdict is especially deferential.’” Apache Deepwater, L.L.C. v. W&T Offshore, Inc., 930 F.3d 647 , 652–53 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Loera v. Kingsville Indep Sch Dist
II We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, applying “the same legal standard as the district court.” Baisden v. I’m Ready Prods., Inc., 693 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012). “[O]ur standard of review with respect to a jury verdict is especially deferential.” Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Evans v. Ford Motor Co., 484 F.3d 329, 334 (5th Cir. 2007)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trabucco v. Rivera
P. 50(a)(1)). “[B]ut our standard of review with respect to a jury verdict is especially deferential.” Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation modified).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
TARAZONA CARVAJAL v. MIJELUM, L.L.C.
Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 450 (5th Cir. 2016); Flores, 73 F.4th at 363 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis v. Board of Supervisors of LSU
When, as here, a case is tried by jury, our standard of review with respect to the jury’s verdict is “especially deferential.” Apache Deepwater, 930 F.3d at 653 (quoting Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
UMG Recordings v. Grande Comm
Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Westport Ins v. PA Natl Mutual
Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilson v. Baucom
Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mondeck v. LineQuest
Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016); 29 U.S.C. § 207 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Escobedo v. Ace Gathering, Inc.
Under the Motor Carrier Act, “interstate commerce” is defined as either (1) “the actual transport of goods across state lines” or (2) “the intrastate transport of goods in the flow of interstate commerce.” Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Westfall v. Luna
We review the denial of a motion for a new trial under an “abuse of discretion standard.” Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fiveash v. SOUTH EAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC.
Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016); Dalheim v. KDFW-TV, 918 F.2d 1220, 1224 (5th Cir. 1990).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Rosales v. Industrial Sales & Services, LLC
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
That is because, according to Rosales, the “Fifth Circuit . . . and . . . the Supreme Court . . . require . . . analyzing the [MCA] exemption based on ‘common proof.’” (Id.) (citing Morris, 332 U.S. at 432–34, 68 S.Ct. at 136–37; Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 447 (5th Cir. 2016); Allen, 755 F.3d at 284–85; Barefoot v. Mid-Am.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fulton v. Untd Airlines
We review the denial of both a motion for a new trial and a motion for remittitur using the deferential abuse of discretion standard. 6 Case: 19-20140 Document: 00515976684 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/12/2021 No. 19-20140 See Olibas, 838 F.3d at 448 (motion for a new trial); Longoria v. Hunter Express, Ltd., 932 F.3d 360, 364 (5th Cir. 2019) (motion for remittitur).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
White v. U.S. Corrections
Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Allen v. Coil Tubing Servs., L.L.C., 755 F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir. 2014)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronald Leo v. Jeld-Wen, Incorporated
Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2016). 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henry Hickson v. Gabriel Hebert
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
It was within the purview of the jury to make factual and credibility determinations, Olibas, 838 F.3d at 450, and the jury’s verdict was not outside of the realm of reason.
cited
Cited "see"
Kristen Silloway, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco
See 838 F.3d 442 , 450 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
Escobedo v. Ace Gathering
(2×)
See Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442 , 449 n.11 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
Escobedo v. Ace Gathering
(2×)
See Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442 , 449 n.11 (5th Cir. 2016) (asking “(1) whether all employees in the class have similar job duties, even if only some employees in the class make interstate trips; (2) whether the employer regularly sends some drivers to interstate destinations; (3) whether the employer requires its drivers to meet DOT requirements; (4) whether and with what frequency project 12 Case: 23-20494 Document: 55-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 07/31/2024 assignments are subject to change; (5) whether the drivers’ assignments are given via dispatch based on customer need; (6) whether dr…
discussed
Cited "see"
Gibson, Inc. v. Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc.
See Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442 , 450 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Dalton v. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., 703 F.2d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 1983)) (“The jury’s function ‘as 8 Defendants cite another district court case involving Gibson for the proposition that guitar body shapes and headstocks cannot serve as source identifiers.
cited
Cited "see"
Prince v. Kansas City Tree Care, LLC
See Olibas v. Barclay, 838 F.3d 442, 451 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fulton v. Untd Airlines
See Olibas, 838 F.3d at 448 (motion for a new trial); Longoria v. Hunter Express, Ltd., 932 6 Case: 19-20140 Document: 00515953029 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/26/2021 No. 19- 20140 F.3d 360 , 364 (5th Cir. 2019) (motion for remittitur).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. David Piper, Jr.
See Olibas v. Barclay , 838 F.3d 442 , 448 (5th Cir. 2016).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gilchrist v. Schlumberger
Second, it erred in finding that Gilchrist and Brockman did not customarily and regularly perform at least one of six other _____________________ 1 See Hobbs v. EVO Inc., 7 F.4th 241, 254-55 , 254 n.50 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Dewan v. M-I, L.L.C., 858 F.3d 331, 337-38 (5th Cir. 2017)) (stating that, despite Dewan’s preceding Encino, “Dewan’s discussion of the elements of the administrative exemption remains good law and is instructive here where the jobs performed by both sets of plaintiffs share certain similarities”); see also White v. U.S. Corr., L.L.C., 996 F.3d 302, 307-08 (5th Ci…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rowland J. MARTIN, Jr., Successor in Interest to Moroco Ventures L.L.C.
v.
Edward BRAVENEC, Esquire Law Office of McKnight and Bravenec 1216 West Avenue, Incorporated
v.
Edward BRAVENEC, Esquire Law Office of McKnight and Bravenec 1216 West Avenue, Incorporated
No. 14-50093.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 11, 2015.
Rowland J. Martin, Jr., San Antonio, TX, pro se., Ricardo Briones, Edward L. Bravenec, McKnight & Bravenec, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Elrod, Jolly, Prado.
Published
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that appellant’s motion to vacate judgment is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s motion for coram nobis relief is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s supplemental motion for coram nobis relief is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s motion to stay issuance of the mandate is DENIED.