Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,742 results
0.96s
District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 5, 2021
Defendant represented it was equipped to meet her needs and would provide proper medical oversight and care through properly trained and qualified individuals to assure that Ms. … The PREP Act is, at its core, an immunity statute; it creates no rights, duties, or obligations. See 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(a)(1).
Cited 0 timesUnknownSchuster v. Percheron Healthcare, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 1, 2021
Defendant represented it was equipped to meet her needs and would provide proper medical oversight and care through properly trained and qualified individuals to assure that Ms. … The PREP Act is, at its core, an immunity statute; it creates no rights, duties, or obligations. See 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(a)(1).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 10, 2026
immunity.”). … State stand- ards do not establish federal constitutional standards.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownLopez v. Prairie House SNF, LLC
District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 5, 2021
Defendant represented it was equipped to meet his needs and would provide proper medical oversight and care through properly trained and qualified individuals to assure that Mr. … The PREP Act is, at its core, an immunity statute; it creates no rights, duties, or obligations. See 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(a)(1).
Cited 0 timesUnknown17 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 20, 1998
To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, Caro must show (1) that she was a member of a protected group, African-American; (2) that she was qualified for her position; (3) that she was dismissed or suffered … Caro clearly spoke as an employee of the DPD.
Cited 4 timesPublishedFuentes v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2023
by sovereign immunity, “the state need not be the named party in a federal lawsuit, for a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to any state agency or entity deemed an ‘alter ego’ or ‘arm’ of the state.” … Accordingly, considering the existing caselaw, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish the Court has jurisdiction over his USERRA claims.
Cited 0 timesUnknown252 F. Supp. 3d 588 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 12, 2017
They instead clearly and specifically address the individual amended provisions. … The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this topic.
Cited 1 timesPublishedMedX Imaging LLC v. Texas Department of Health and Human Services
District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 27, 2025
their qualifications by performing 25 mammographic examinations under the supervision of a qualified medical radiologic technologist. 25 TEX. … Plaintiffs may establish Article III standing by demonstrating continuing harm caused by Defendants’ past actions. Bauer, 341 F.3d at 358.
Cited 0 timesUnknown541 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 7, 2008
immunity grounds. … But this allegation, even if true, is insufficient to establish that Jones was involved in the decision to fire Miller.
Cited 13 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 21, 2024
Pursuant to this provision, the Court may review a complaint and dismiss sua sponte those claims premised on meritless legal theories and those that clearly lack any basis in fact. See Denton v. … There is a “well-established policy that the plaintiff be given every opportunity to state a claim.” Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Hitt v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownLindsey v. American Airlines Inc
District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 7, 2023
Servs., 47 F.3d 1438, 1444 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting pretext can be inferred where “the employee was ‘clearly better qualified’ (as opposed to merely better or as qualified) than the employee[ ] who [was] selected”). … The evidence does not reflect (and Lindsey does not explain) why Londono’s prior position made her less qualified for Onboard Service, much less why Lindsey was “clearly more qualified” for the position.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 15, 2026
That is, “[f]ederal courts are without jurisdiction over suits against a state, a state agency, or a state official in his official capacity unless that state has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated … So “it is ‘incredibly difficult to establish general jurisdiction in a forum other than’” where a defendant is at home. Seville v. Maersk Line, Ltd., 53 F.4th 890, 895 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Frank v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownTrotter v. Office of the Attorney General of Texas
District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 20, 2025
Jan. 4, 2000) (per curiam) (“[I]t is well-established that the district court may dismiss a complaint on 12(b)(6) grounds sua sponte.” (citations omitted)). … That is, “‘[f]ederal courts are without jurisdiction over suits against a state, a state agency, or a state official in his official capacity unless that state has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 9, 2026
Saenz establishes one pole of the inquiry: a claim that can only be seen as arising out of an intentional tort. … Benavides establishes the other pole: a claim that, as pleaded, could arise out of an intentional tort or could arise out of negligence.
Cited 0 timesUnknown802 F. Supp. 1468 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 3, 1992
Initially, an employee must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by proving that (1) he was discharged; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was within the protected class at the time of discharge; and … CONCLUSION A close reading of the cases discussed above clearly reveals that the burden of showing pretext requires more than Moore has provided here.
Cited 3 timesPublishedFlores v. Act Event Services, Inc.
55 F. Supp. 3d 928 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 21, 2014
The defendants argued that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to establish three essential elements of an FLSA claim: (1) that the defendants qualified as the plaintiffs’ employers; (2) that the defendants … Absent the factual specifics regarding Hernandez, however, the complaint fails to establish that the defendants violated the FLSA.
Cited 16 timesPublishedUnited States v. Forest Dale, Inc.
818 F. Supp. 954 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 5, 1993
Plaintiff contends that Forest Dale was not authorized to serve only elderly non-disabled persons and that Defendants are not immunized from the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. … It is well established that “the government’s failure to establish an issue beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution does not preclude a subsequent attempt to establish the same proposition by a lower degree of
Cited 16 timesPublishedDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 20, 2022
Thus, to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Plaintiffs must first establish the requirements for § 702. Ala.-Coushatta Tribe, 757 F.3d at 488. … Plaintiffs counterargue that § 702 waives sovereign immunity and that they allege a constitutional violation as a cause of action, which establishes the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. 115, Pls.’
Cited 0 timesUnknown608 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 14, 1985
—Corpus Christi 1982), rev’d on other grounds, 650 S.W.2d 61 (Tex.1983): 'As established in [Turner v. … (iii) They argue that, if their theory is not accepted, handgun manufacturers will be given a “special immunity” from responsibility for physical harm caused by their products.
Cited 24 timesPublishedBarnett v. Texas Wrestling Ass'n
16 F. Supp. 2d 690 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 3, 1998
Municipalities and other local governmental bodies, as well as individuals, qualify as “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. Monell v. … The defendants seek summary judgment based on sovereign immunity, the ab *698 sence of an express private right of action, 6 and the Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies. USD Motion II at 9.
Cited 1 timesPublished
Ask Donna