Case law

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bright

872 F. Supp. 1551 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 10, 1995

Given the qualified nature of the RTC's answer, it is not a *1562 binding admission and must be analyzed by the trier of fact to determine the weight to be given to it. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-18 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736-38 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (abandoning subjective component of qualified immunity defense and recognizing that subjective element had proved incompatible with Rule 56

United States ex rel. Colquitt v. Abbott Laboratories

864 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 30, 2012

The FDA’s warning letter clearly contains an allegation of a regulatory violation concerning Cordis’s S.M.A.R.T. stent, because it plainly alleges that Cordis violated FDA regulations by promoting the device for an off-label … Clearly, Colquitt’s claims regarding those stents are based upon those allegations and transactions.

Huffman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 3, 2021

“In order to qualify for disability insurance benefits or [supplemental security income], a claimant must suffer from a disability.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)). … Nelon’s opinion, “the record does not clearly establish … the effect [Plaintiff]’s condition had on [her] ability to work.” Ripley, 67 F.3d at 557.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Arcturus Corp.

171 F. Supp. 3d 512 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 21, 2016

Once the SEC satisfies its burden, the defendant then bears the burden of proving he qualifies for an exemption from the registration requirement. SEC v. Cont’l Tobacco Co., 463 F.2d 137, 155-56 (5th Cir.1972). … The Court finds the summary judgment record clearly supports a finding that Parvizian’s scienter can be imputed to Aschere and Arcturus. See SEC v.

Ingle v. Butler

District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 1, 2025

To establish a due process violation in connection with a disciplinary hearing, a prisoner must establish that he has been denied a “‘liberty interest’ that the prison action implicated or infringed.” Richardson v. … The district court is not required to allow such an opportunity, though, if the prisoner’s claims are clearly frivolous, Eason v.

Kellogg Co. v. Mattox

763 F. Supp. 1369 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 12, 1991

Kellogg has therefore failed to clearly carry its burden of persuading the court that there is a substantial likelihood it will prevail on this claim. 11. … Nor has Kellogg established that the requirements of the Texas Act stand as an obstacle to federal purposes and objectives.

In Re Harbor Financial Group, Inc.

303 B.R. 124 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 21, 2003

Although not clearly argued at the hearing on September 5, 2003, A. … The court had established a dedicated fund to pay mortgagor escrow claims. That fund has been exhausted.

K.C. v. Mansfield Independent School District

618 F. Supp. 2d 568 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 26, 2009

The statute clearly *575 stated its commitment to “our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.” 20 U.S.C … In turn, “the FAPE must be tailored to the child’s particular needs by means of an individual education program, which is a written statement prepared at a meeting attended by a qualified representative of the school district

Harvey v. Cotten

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 1, 2024

Upon establishing the defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that he exercised due diligence in serving the defendant after the limitations period. Lexington Ins. Co. v. … Defendants also raise other arguments in support of dismissal, such as failure to state a claim and qualified immunity. Def. Cotten’s Mot. to Dismiss 5–13, ECF No. 9; Def. Green’s Mot. to Dismiss 5–10, ECF No. 11.

Buehler AG v. Ocrim, S.P.A.

836 F. Supp. 1291 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 6, 1992

The prosecution history establishes that the patent examiner was led to believe (1) that the Plaintiffs’ innovation involved a three position valve, as clearly distinguished from a two position valve, and (2) that the “advantages … Products need not be fungible, however, to qualify as reasonable substitutes. Yoder Brothers, Inc. v.

Baylor Health Care System v. Equitable Plan Services, Inc.

955 F. Supp. 2d 678 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 5, 2013

must ... modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”). … May 12, 2009): The clearly erroneous standard applies to the factual components of the magistrate judge’s decision.

LM Insurance Corporation v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company

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

Having viewed the evidence and taken all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Defendant, see Diebold, 389 U.S. at 655, the Court finds that the summary judgment record establishes Rogers qualifies an additional … Here, the proposed extrinsic evidence clearly fails on the third element.

March Madness Athletic Ass'n, LLC v. Netfire, Inc.

310 F. Supp. 2d 786 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 28, 2003

Not everyone who was contacted was deemed ‘qualified’ to respond to the survey. … Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 , 112 S.Ct. 2753 , 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992) (“it is common ground that § 43(a) protects qualifying unregistered trademarks and that the general principles qualifying a mark for registration

Jones

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 18, 2026

claim appears on 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 … Jan. 4, 2000) (“[I]t is well-established that the district court may dismiss a complaint on [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6) grounds sua sponte.”

Harrison v. Collier

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 10, 2025

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 … The district court is not required to allow such an opportunity, though, if the prisoner’s claims are clearly frivolous, Eason v.

Adams v. Gates Learjet Corp.

711 F. Supp. 1377 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 12, 1989

Against the theory of the basic rule— that a right of action accrues in the plaintiff with the defendant’s breach of duty, although “damage” ... does not result until sometime later — one must consider the qualifying proposition … Similarly, here, if Learjet committed the tortious acts the Plaintiffs allege, these acts clearly would have been “unlawful” and would have created an immediate right of action to the initial purchasers of the Model 24’s.

Garcia

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

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U.S. CONST., AMEND I. … Garcia has fully responded to the Court’s questionnaire and has clearly stated his best case.

Metroplex Atheists v. City of Fort Worth

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 6, 2023

Second, in the statement, the City again reiterated that it has a policy and “established criteria” in place to qualify for the program. ECF No. 27 at 11. … And having an organization’s event blanketed across a historic downtown area clearly implies an endorsement to anyone walking down the street.

Rossi v. Wohl

633 F. Supp. 2d 270 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 19, 2009

These issues, even if not explicitly litigated in the prior suit, clearly qualify as claims that could or should have been litigated at that time as defenses to the account stated claims. … Thus, this issue was clearly present in the prior suits, and is now barred. 41 . Hyman, 434 N.Y.S.2d at 744 (emphasis added). 42 . Yeiser, 535 F.Supp.2d at 421 . 43 .

Henderson v. Toliver

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 24, 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 Henderson’s filing reflects that the complaint presents allegations that qualify as clearly baseless, irrational, or wholly incredible, requiring dismissal with prejudice.