Case law

Diggs v. Tango Management Consulting Inc

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 26, 2021

The case law is well-established that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be appropriate where an affirmative defense appears clearly on the face of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. See Love Terminal Partners, L.P. v. … Based on the allegations, the Court cannot conclude that this affirmative defense of the 90-day limitations period clearly appears on the face of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

Henderson v. Muniz

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 17, 2025

A decision is considered contrary to clearly established federal law if the state reaches a conclusion opposite to a decision of the Supreme Court on a question of law, or if the state court decides a case differently … An application of clearly established federal law is considered unreasonable if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle, but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts.

United States v. Lubbock Independent School District

455 F. Supp. 1223 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 27, 1978

The evidence clearly shows that in the year following the Thompson closing, Dupre, a predominantly Anglo school, had an increase in its minority enrollment from 38 minority students to 83. … Likewise, local school authorities and their administrative staffs are much better equipped and qualified than the court to prepare, and submit to the court for approval, the details of any remedial plan necessary to correct

Vinewood Capital, LLC v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP

735 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 19, 2010

Thus, the pleadings clearly establish that Vinewood had a right of which it was aware. … Similarly, Vinewood’s inaction, as evidenced by its pleadings and the record from Vinewood I, establish the defense of quasi-estoppel.

Cortez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 22, 2022

“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)). … But the ALJ fails to identify any evidence clearly establishing the actual effect Plaintiff's physical conditions had on her ability to work. See Ripley, 67 F.3d at 557.

H. v. Carroll Independent School District

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 27, 2025

“[T]he constitutional concept of conscience shocking duplicates no traditional category of common-law fault, but rather points clearly away from liability, or clearly toward it, only at the ends of the tort law's … Here, taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, he has failed to establish that the Defendants actions “violate[] the ‘decencies of civilized conduct.’” Lewis, 523 U.S. at 836–37.

Independent Financial Group LLC v. Harrison

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 6, 2025

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. … declaratory and injunctive relief sought by IFG turns on its contention that the Harrisons’ claims are not arbitrable under FINRA Rule 12200 because they do not have an arbitration agreement with IFG, and they do not qualify

Worrall v. Love Style Inc

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 15, 2022

Associational Discrimination Under the ADA (Worrall’s Wife) The ADA prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual … He pleads only that River Shack “clearly and explicitly knew of the disabled relative.” See Doc. 1, Compl., ¶ 56.

Provident Precious Metals, LLC v. Northwest Territorial Mint, LLC

117 F. Supp. 3d 879 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 27, 2015

To qualify for trade dress protection, the “trade dress must be nonfunctional and either be inherently distinctive or 'have' secondary meaning.” Clearline Technologies Ltd. v. … As discussed below, the Court finds NWTM’s trade dress is functional, and thus does not qualify for trade dress protection.

Galindo v. United States

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 29, 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. … § 2674 (waiving sovereign immunity to make the government liable “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances”).

Jacobs v. United States

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 19, 2025

Thus, Movant’s § 2255 motion is clearly outside the one-year limitations period absent equitable tolling. B. … Accordingly, Movant cannot carry his burden of establishing that equitable tolling is warranted here. See United States v. Petty, 530 F.3d 361, 365 (5th Cir. 2008).

Clayton v. US Xpress Inc

District Court, N.D. Texas · May 11, 2021

While the Wrongful Death statute identifies persons who may sue on behalf of decedents, it does not specify who qualifies as a child. … For these reasons, Plaintiff does not qualify as a child of Mr. Marlin, and is, therefore, not his statutory beneficiary.

Taylor v. El Centro College

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 11, 2022

II “[A] Rule 41(a)(1)(A) voluntary dismissal without prejudice qualifies as a ‘final proceeding[,]’” and “is subject to vacatur under Rule 60(b).” Yesh Music v. … The burden of establishing at least one of the Rule 60(b) requirements is on the movant, and a determination of whether that burden has been met rests within the discretion - 3 -

United Healthcare Insurance v. Levy

114 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 8, 2000

Id. at 331 , 117 S.Ct. 832 . 5 Likewise, in DeBuono , the Court found no preemption because the specific law at issue, taxing gross receipts for patient services at health care facilities, “clearly operates in a field that … As a preliminary and critical matter, 'the Court concludes that these undisputed facts establish that Doe's decision was a pure coverage determination.

Colbert v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

995 F. Supp. 697 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 30, 1998

Colbert has submitted no evidence to establish that Rob Williams qualifies as her “employer” so that he may be held individually hable for sexual harassment under Title VII or the TCHRA. … Colbert alleges that these actions clearly show a conscious indifference for her rights and constitute gross negligence. *705 The undisputed summary judgment evidence demonstrates that Georgia-Pacific has subscribed to and

Shoemaker

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 9, 2026

Tyler’s - 6 - “qualified witness” testimony establishes that the exhibits were “made at or near the time by . . . someone with knowledge[,]” “kept in the … McKesson must “clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, reasons for its actions which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not the

Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 13, 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 her ability to work. Bowles v. Comm'r of Soc.

Candler

District Court, N.D. Texas · May 22, 2026

As Jones helped Candler look for a light in the shed, Candler claims that Jones was “clearly frustrated” as he searched. ECF No. 51 at 8. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, an employee must demonstrate that he “(1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at issue; (3) was discharged or suffered some adverse

Cline v. Astrue

577 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 29, 2008

Although Factor 1 clearly supports giving greater weight to the opinion of Dr. Compton because she examined Plaintiff, whereas Dr. … Cicerello-McGarrahan’s opinion is specifically consistent with the opinion of the SAMC, and is not clearly contradicted by the opinion of Dr.

Gaines v. Martinez

353 F. Supp. 780 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 19, 1972

By letter of May 18, 1971, DCCAC agreed to the establishment of TACC as the Coordinator of the Community House program. … Clearly, Congress and the OEO itself have laid down rules and regulations upon which this Court can weigh the Director’s action and therefore the discretionary function exception is inapplicable in this ease.