Case law

Political Civil Voters Organization v. City of Terrell

565 F. Supp. 338 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 8, 1983

The most obvious purpose for the creation of such systems is clearly discrimination.” Id. at 1363 . (Emphasis added). … The black community strongly opposed the establishment of a slaughterhouse in south Terrell.

Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Inc.

793 F. Supp. 2d 825 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 22, 2011

Although the Political Committees do not make the point clearly, they appear to argue that as applied *841 TUFTA works here as a preempted “[limitation on contributions and expenditures.” … In any case, as fruits of the Ponzi scheme, neither Stanford's loans nor SIB’s reported assets qualify as assets under TUFTA. See Tex.

Enviroglas Products, Inc. v. Enviroglas Products, LLC

705 F. Supp. 2d 560 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2010

(citing Med-Immune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 126-27 , 127 S.Ct. 764 , 166 L.Ed.2d 604 (2007))). … Therefore, if the transferee district “is not clearly more convenient,” the plaintiffs choice of venue must be respected. Id.

Ward v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 18, 2025

Substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s RFC determination in Ripley, thus warranting remand, because the record “d[id] not clearly establish…the effect [the claimant’s] condition had on his ability to … After Ripley, the Court found that reversible error lies where the “record does not clearly establish” how an applicant’s condition affects his ability to work. Bowles v. Comm'r of Soc.

Gibson & Associates, Inc. v. Home Insurance

966 F. Supp. 468 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 11, 1997

The moving party must identify the evidence on file in the case which establishes the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 , 106 S.Ct. at 2552 . … Property Damage Home next submits that the indemnity claim is nonetheless excluded from coverage because the Shop Owners’ losses do not qualify as “property damage” under the Policy.

Roberts v. National Autotech, Inc.

192 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 24, 2002

argued the producers’ work was of “substantial importance” to the station because they were responsible for the success or failure of television shows, the Court held otherwise: As a matter of law, that is insufficient to establish … The 50 percent rule seems better directed at situations where the employee’s management and non-management functions are more clearly severable than they are here. 28 Holdings within this Circuit similarly reject rigid time

Keltos

District Court, N.D. Texas · May 26, 2026

Specific jurisdiction must arise from a clearly 2 Resp. Mot. Dismiss 5–7, ECF No. 12. … The Fifth Circuit in Shanks explicitly stated that it would leave it “for the district court to determine on remand whether absolute immunity applies” to non- defamation claims. Shanks, 169 F.3d at n.8.

Tran v. Sewell Corporation

District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 20, 2024

A plaintiff must establish four elements for a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework, absent direct evidence of intentional race discrimination: “(1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he was qualified … The evidence presented is insufficient to qualify as a materially adverse employment action.

Camper v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 23, 2020

Plaintiff has made no attempt to explain how it is clearly apparent that the contracting parties’ intended to benefit her. … Plaintiff has failed to plead facts establishing that such a relationship exists in this case.

Schreck v. City of Amarillo

District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 8, 2021

The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of [her] status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore v. … A power of attorney, absent proof of incompetency, cannot qualify a person to bring suit as a next friend. See Weber v.

Woods v. STS Aviation

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 16, 2024

The court also concludes that Woods has plausibly pleaded that she was qualified for her position. 3The familiar McDonnell Douglas standard for evaluating employment discrimination claims is an evidentiary framework, not … Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 470 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Although Chhim did not have to submit evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination at this stage, he had to plead sufficient facts on all of the ultimate

Karahogitis v. TPUSA, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 7, 2025

To establish a prima facie claim for age discrimination, a “plaintiff must show that (1) she was discharged; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) she was within the protected class at the time of discharge; and … If a contract is unambiguous, “[t]he law is clearly established that we look solely to the four corners of the contract to determine its meaning and intent.” Red Ball Oxygen Co., Inc. v. Sw. R.R.

Alexander v. U.S. Credit Management, Inc.

384 F. Supp. 2d 1003 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 1, 2005

Congress did adopt that approach in the final version, and much of the required language clearly derives from Oliver’s recommendations. … While the text clearly provided a right to sue, the original proposed consumer disclosure did not mention this right.

Jimenez v. Director TDCJ-CID

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 6, 2020

, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.§§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2). … Although Plaintiffs Complaint clearly indicates that his placement in administrative segregation is ongoing and has lasted for an extensive period, he has failed to articulate any claims that his placement was

Peavy v. Harman

37 F. Supp. 2d 495 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 18, 1999

Plaintiffs clearly have standing to file a motion to suppress. … This clearly constitutes an interception under Title III. The statute does not define the term “procure.”

Berry v. Lee

428 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 8, 2006

To the extent the fifth factor applies and there is shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies, Texas’ interest is clearly paramount to China’s. … And as employees, they cannot qualify as a third party or stranger to the Berry employment contract who is legally capable of interfering with it.

Lee v. Dallas County Sheriff Office

District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 24, 2021

Further, it is well-established and ‘“clearly proper in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion [that a court may] take judicial notice of matters of public record.”’ Funk v. … Here, TDCJ qualifies as a public entity. The parties do not dispute whether Mr. Lee is a qualified individual under the ADA/RA. Moreover, the court determines that Mr.

Johnson v. Trinity Mother Frances Hospital

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 28, 2025

And “[i]t is well-established that a district court may dismiss a complaint on its own motion under [Rule] 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may granted.” Starrett v. U.S. … A review of Johnson’s filing reflects that the complaint presents claims and allegations that qualify as clearly baseless, irrational, or wholly incredible, requiring dismissal with prejudice.

Watson

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 3, 2026

First State Farm asserts that the rodent infestation does not qualify as one “occurrence” under the policy. … “Although these claims are individual causes of action which do not depend on each other for support, Texas courts have clearly ruled that these extra-contractual tort claims require the same predicate for recovery

Mir v. L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P.

319 F.R.D. 220 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 22, 2016

L-3 argues that “[njowhere M Ms Response does Plaintiff represent that he produced all relevant documents related to L-3’s estoppel defense—clearly, Plaintiff has not,” Id. … prove its estoppel defense in order to engage in discovery on that defense” and that “L-3 served the disputed Requests on Mil’ in order to determine if other documents exist demonstrating that MM precluded himself from qualifying