Case law

Armas v. St. Augustine Old Roman Catholic Church

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 8, 2019

Augustine school does not qualify at all as a “secondary school” under the FLSA. … Because Plaintiff affirmatively and clearly made a complaint regarding his overtime to his supervisor who clearly understood his request, Plaintiff meets the first element of his retaliation claim.”), rec. adopted sub nom

State of Utah v. Walsh

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 21, 2023

Fifth, the Rule removed special requirements concerning the selection of qualified designated investment alternatives. /d. at 73842. … ECF No, 391 at 37-40. 10 These arguments all fail to establish an APA violation.

Rubenstein v. Republic National Life Insurance

74 F.R.D. 337 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 20, 1976

Such contentions go to the question of whether scienter can be established. … Seemingly, the Plaintiffs were faced with reluctance on the part of qualified appraisal experts to attack appraisals prepared by others within the same craft.

Perez v. Director, TDCJ-CID

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2024

A state court’s failure to cite Supreme Court authority does not, per se, establish the state court’s decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law: “the state court need not even be aware of our precedents, … Legal principles are “clearly established” for purposes of AEDPA review when the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of Supreme Court decisions existing at the time of the relevant state-court decision establish those

Shanze Enterprises, Inc. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, PA

150 F. Supp. 3d 771 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 15, 2015

of its website to show that it actually infringed Baja’s trademark, which clearly touches on the merits of the Underlying Suit. … Shanze also avers that America’s Recommended did not address whether “AARP” qualified as a slogan. This is because, as here, the underlying complaint "[did] not address a copyright, trade dress or slogan.”

O'Gara v. Binkley

384 F. Supp. 3d 674 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 24, 2019

thereafter the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish that the statement was made with malice." … "The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is 'actual malice' which is established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff or by a showing that the defendant

Trieger v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 15, 2019

Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (It is well-established and “clearly proper in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion [that a court may] take judicial notice of matters … 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.

MA LEG PARTNERS 1 v. City of Dallas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 4, 2020

hear the case on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion.2 A court must dismiss the case if it “lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.”3 And the burden is on the party who seeks federal jurisdiction to clearly … Aug. 27, 2018) (holding that the federal Declaratory Judgment Act is not a waiver of sovereign immunity).

Wile v. Abbott Laboratories

District Court, N.D. Texas · May 8, 2020

Wile clearly offers Dr. Zulqarnain’s statements for the truth of the matter and the statements do not fall within any hearsay exception. See FED. RS. EVID. 801(c), 802; Martin v. John W. … Stone Oil Distrib., Inc., 819 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1987) (“Hearsay evidence … that cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence at trial do[es] not qualify as competent opposing evidence

Union Pacific Resources Group, Inc. v. Rhône-Poulenc, Inc.

45 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 2, 1999

Basic Hourly Retirement Plan (“Plan 1679,” together with Plan 1674, the “Seller Pension Plans ”) to be eligible for participation under a defined benefit plan or plans of Purchaser or an Affiliate of Purchaser that is qualified … Because plaintiffs so clearly do not have any Securities Act cause of action, the court is not concerning itself further with that inadequacy. 11 .

Weisshaus v. Teichelman

District Court, N.D. Texas · May 25, 2022

Because Defendant 100th Judicial District does not dispute whether District Attorney Inman qualifies as “a policymaker,” the Court begins by analyzing the second “attribution principle” — the existence of “ … Establishing deliberate indifference generally requires a “pattern of similar violations” arising from a policy “so clearly inadequate as to be ‘obviously likely to result in a constitutional violation.’” Burge v.

Martinez v. Deaf Smith County Grain Processors, Inc.

583 F. Supp. 1200 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 1, 1984

The Supreme Court has elaborated on when the anti-injunction statute is not a bar: [I]t is clear that, in order to qualify as an “expressly authorized” exception to the anti-injunction statute, an Act of Congress must have … federal right or remedy, enforceable in a federal court of equity, that could be frustrated if the federal court were not empowered to enjoin a state court proceeding____ The test, rather, is whether an Act of Congress, clearly

Simms v. Jones

296 F.R.D. 485 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 9, 2013

However, many of these e-mails clearly refer to the 1,458 seats that were eventually marked as “restricted view”. See e.g., id. at 182, 207. … Here, individualized questions clearly predominate over the questions common to the class.

Mielke v. Saul

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 3, 2020

The ALJ concluded that these reports, taken only three months apart, were too inconsistent to qualify as concrete evidence. Id. … Under the test established by the Fifth Circuit in Bowling v.

Villegas v. United States

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 12, 2024

The transcript of the arraignment on the superseding information clearly reflects that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. … Movant did not qualify for the safety-valve.

Taylor v. Rothstein Kass & Company PLLC

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 11, 2020

B The federal work product protection found in Rule 26(b)(3) provides for the qualified protection of documents and tangible things prepared by or for a party or that party’s representative … Rothstein Kass has failed to meet its burden of establishing that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.

Chapman v. QuikTrip Corporation

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 31, 2022

While Defendant briefly alludes to a potential conflict with Rule 702 and maintains that testimony under Section 18.001 “do[es] not rise to the level of live testimony from an expert qualified under [Rule] 702,” Defendant … The Court’s holding does not extend to these provisions, which are clearly procedural.

Mcgee v. Director, TDCJ-CID

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 2, 2025

“The purpose of Rule 60(b) is to balance the principle of finality of a judgment with the interest of the court in seeing that justice is done in light of all the facts.”22 “The burden of establishing at least one … McGee argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals “never invoked any procedur[al] bar” on the claims this Court deemed procedurally defaulted and that the Court of Criminal Appeals’s denial without an opinion qualifies as

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Yang Kun "Michael" Chung

321 F.R.D. 250 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 26, 2017

The Court clearly intended for all the Defendants to have access to all of the materials Samsung was ordered to produce. [Dkt. 107 at pp.39-41]. … Having qualified its answers with its understandings and concerns about what may or may not be intended to be a gift or present, All Pro must fully answer the questions asked.

Carney v. Director, TDCJ-CID

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 5, 2021

Under the Act, a writ of habeas corpus should be granted only if a state court arrives at a decision that is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States … established federal law” in making its decision.