Case law

Zachary Wade Skinner v. Gray County Sheriff’s Department, et al.

District Court, N.D. Texas · May 8, 2026

of the force was clearly unreasonable. … “[I]t is beyond question that [a person] has a clearly established constitutional right to be free from arrest absent an arrest warrant or probable cause.” Freeman, 483 F.3d at 411.

Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District

261 F. Supp. 545 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 9, 1966

Plaintiffs alleged that the minor plaintiffs were, in all respects, qualified to enter the academic facilities of the Defendant, Dallas Independent School District, but were being denied the right to admission and enrollment … that plaintiffs’ ■cause of action, if any, was for invasion of personal rights for which state laws .and state forums provide the avenue of relief and “because the decisions which have been promulgated, * * * seem to us clearly

Tatum

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 15, 2026

against a government entity or employee if the court determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Tatum has fully responded to the Court’s questionnaire, has filed three amended complaints and six supplements, and has clearly stated his best case.

Taylor v. Brook Valley Management Inc

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 14, 2025

Under Section 1331, federal question jurisdiction typically “exists when ‘a well- pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends … the face of the complaint, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is only proper in the case of a frivolous or insubstantial claim, i.e., a claim which has no plausible foundation or which is clearly

Haralson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

564 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 8, 2008

Waisanen, 653 F.Supp. 825, 832 (D.S.D.1987) (emotional distress accompanied by high blood pressure was sufficient to establish physical harm); Kufalk v. … Physically-manifested PTSD clearly and unambiguously falls within these broad terms ...

Hoffman v. L & M ARTS

774 F. Supp. 2d 826 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 7, 2011

established meaning and history. … Hoffman has therefore failed to establish that Meyer purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of Texas by establishing minimum contacts with Texas.

Alford v. Wonderland Montessori Academy LLC

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2024

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Alford must make a prima facie showing for each claim. … Because the complaint clearly and explicitly states that the retaliation claim is brought under Title VII and the TCHRA, Alford cannot at the summary judgment stage add claims of retaliation under the ADA or § 1981.

McKinney/Pearl Restaurant Partners, L.P. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

322 F.R.D. 235 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 8, 2016

Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel alleging that “Defendants have objected to and refused to produce clearly discoverable documents in response to multiple requests for production, relying on invalid boilerplate objections … “A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the

Coffey v. Fort Wayne Pools, Inc.

24 F. Supp. 2d 671 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 12, 1998

Instead, the manufacturer would sell the products to qualified installers who would then sell the products directly to the customers and then install the system. … Thus, while the plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action for negligence, they clearly seek to recover for losses sustained by Phelps’ failure to perform the contract.

John H. Carney & Associates v. State Farm Lloyds

376 F. Supp. 2d 697 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 28, 2005

“The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction in federal court rests on the party seeking to invoke it.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.1998). IV. Analysis A. … In this case, we do not have the level of activity in Brown , which clearly indicated that the defendants desired to submit to the state court’s jurisdiction.

Kennard v. Lindsay

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 Kennard’s filing reflects that the complaint presents claims and allegations that qualify as clearly baseless, irrational, or wholly incredible, requiring dismissal with prejudice.

Albritton v. Henderson County Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 23, 2024

When the transferee forum is clearly more convenient, a transfer should be ordered.” Id. … Albritton pled sufficient facts to establish a supervisory liability claim against the Taft Defendants.

Marshall v. Quinn-L Equities, Inc.

704 F. Supp. 1384 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 6, 1988

Jones Walker moves for summary judgment on the basis that Jones Walker does not qualify as a “seller” of securities under either Section 12(1) or 12(2). 15 U.S.C. § 77o. … objective of the transactions in this litigation was the exchange of intangibles (i.e. money for securities), the services to be performed by the general partner formed the basis of the Third Amended Complaint and were clearly

Holmes v. N. Tex. Health Care Laundry Coop. Ass'n

304 F. Supp. 3d 525 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 18, 2018

Holmes may prove her sexual harassment claim either by establishing that a tangible employment action was taken against her because of her sex (also known as quid pro quo harassment) or by establishing that a supervisor with … Further, although Holmes asserts that "[t]he policies and procedures of NTHCL were clearly a farce[,]" Pl.'s Resp.

Siemons v. Unknown Warden of the Wise County Jail

District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 27, 2020

and § 1915A provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In order to establish a violation of this constitutional right, a detainee must show that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Lacy, 357 F. App’x at 609.

Clay v. Oncor Electric

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 9, 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. … ANALYSIS A review of Clay’s filing reflects that the complaint, which is largely unintelligible, presents allegations that qualify as clearly baseless, irrational, or wholly

Garner v. The Stageline Company

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 30, 2022

Accordingly, courts consider whether: (1) material issues of fact exist; (2) there has been substantial prejudice; (3) the grounds for default are clearly established; (4) the default was caused by a good faith mistake … The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by showing he: “(1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at issue; (3) was discharged or suffered some adverse employment

Pfeil v. Intecom Telecommunications

90 F. Supp. 2d 742 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 20, 2000

Plaintiff failed to establish that Stuckey in this case qualified as an employer by wielding such powers. … Pfeil has thus established a prima facie case of retaliation.

Suniga

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 13, 2026

Again, the TCCA did not act contrary to, or unreasonably apply, clearly established federal law. … The TCCA neither acted contrary to nor unreasonably applied clearly established law.

Brantley v. Director, TDCJ-CID

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 13, 2024

A federal court may grant relief if the state court adjudicated a constitutional claim contrary to, or unreasonably applied clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Harrington v. … Moreover, he cannot show that the state courts’ denial of his claims constituted an unreasonable or contrary application of clearly established federal law as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).