Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,190 results
1.21s
District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 22, 2026
Such conjecture does not establish the requisite threat of future harm. … Here, that is clearly not the case.
Cited 0 timesUnknownGroup 1 Automotive, Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.
District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 15, 2020
The party seeking to transfer venue bears the burden to “satisfy the statutory requirements and clearly demonstrate that transfer is appropriate. … Therefore, the series qualifier canon applies. Under the series qualifier canon, the qualifying phrase applies to each following phrase.
Cited 0 timesUnknown11 F. Supp. 3d 789 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2014
IMMUNITY LexisNexis contends, albeit only in the short final paragraph of its twenty-five-page brief in support of summary judgment, that it is entitled to immunity “from claims where [it] is performing services related to … These arguments flout well-established understandings of unconscionability claims.
Cited 8 timesPublishedBarney F. Kogen & Co. v. TRED AVON ASSOCIATES LTD.
393 F. Supp. 2d 519 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 24, 2005
other party’s home forum, ... the answer clearly is that it cannot.”). … Although Ko-gen makes general assertions in his affidavit that Oxford Boatyard “represented that it was qualified and capable of performing the necessary workmanship on the Kamp Kogen,” there is an insufficient relationship
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States v. State of Texas
430 F. Supp. 920 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 15, 1977
Residence may be established to the satisfaction of the registrar at any of the three steps. … Clearly, the named plaintiffs differ, but our inquiry does not end with that determination.
Cited 7 timesPublished180 F. Supp. 2d 832 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 27, 2000
To the extent these are decisions on mixed questions of law and fact, the record establishes that they are not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law to the underlying facts. … The state habeas court’s decision is neither contrary to, nor does it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as established by the United States Supreme Court.
Cited 2 timesPublishedPrudential Insurance Co. of America v. Goodman
895 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 31, 1995
Congress added further safeguards to ensure that SGLIA proceeds would be immune not only from state community property laws but also from other state attachment provisions, which exempt the policy’s proceeds from outside … In comparing the NSLIA and the SGLIA, the Ridgway Court noted that: "... the [SGLIAl’s unqualified directive to pay the proceeds to the properly designated beneficiary clearly suggests that no different result was intended
Cited 0 timesPublishedAriel B. v. Fort Bend Independent School District
428 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 20, 2006
A defendant’s response to sexual harassment is considered deliberately indifferent only if it is “clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” Id. at 648 . … ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ..., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
Cited 4 timesPublishedTrcka v. Atzenhoffer Chevrolet Company, Inc
District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 27, 2023
“To establish a prima facie discrimination claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he was qualified for the job; [and] (3) that he was subject to an adverse employment decision … Such functions include, but are not limited to, “the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownSanterre v. Agip Petroleum Co., Inc.
45 F. Supp. 2d 558 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 29, 1999
Agip maintains that the “of their choice” language contained in Article I(2)(c) of the FNC Treaty immunizes it from Santerre’s Title VII claims. Agip’s contention, however, is misplaced. … Title VII defines an "employee” as: an individual employed by an employer, except that the term "employee” shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified
Cited 40 timesPublishedSafety National Casualty Corp. v. United States Department of Homeland Security
711 F. Supp. 2d 697 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 24, 2008
Section 702 of the APA provides a clear waiver of sovereign immunity. 5 U.S.C. § 702 ; see also Stockman v. … By bringing this counterclaim, Defendants have waived sovereign immunity as to certain claims by Plaintiffs, see Frederick v.
Cited 4 timesPublished598 F. Supp. 1165 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 28, 1984
The stipulated facts and testimony clearly establish that offshore drilling platforms are necessary for these purposes and such fact has been recognized by Defendant, both by its allowance of other intangible costs associated … Since the only costs in issue in the case at bar are specifically enumerated in the regulation as qualifying for the option and since these expenditures in themselves do not have a salvage value, such costs are deductible
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 22, 2021
A claim has no arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, “such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.” Davis v. … Plaintiff “must establish that he has a personal stake in the alleged dispute and that the alleged injury suffered is particularized as to him.” Id. at 819.
Cited 0 timesUnknown347 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 5, 2004
The present fact situation qualifies as one of those circumstances. … Consequently, the Government’s lack of notice to defense counsel clearly violated Defendant’s compulsory process and due process rights.
Cited 1 timesPublishedDifferential Development-1994, Ltd. v. Harkrider Distributing Co.
470 F. Supp. 2d 727 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 9, 2007
But the two remedies are clearly distinct.” (Id. at n. 3). … “Disposal” is “one of many different acts that qualify as a release under § 9601(22).” Uniroyal, 160 F.3d at 245 .
Cited 10 timesPublishedKennedy Ship & Repair, L.P. v. Loc Tran
256 F. Supp. 2d 678 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 25, 2003
court’s jurisdiction in Suit No. 1 when it instituted Suit No. 2, would produce an unjust asymmetry, allowing a party [ ] to enjoy the full benefits of access to a state’s courts qua plaintiff, while nonetheless retaining immunity … Clearly, Plaintiffs have an interest in convenient and effective resolution of their claims. Additionally, Texas has an interest in providing an effective means of redress for its citizens.
Cited 5 timesPublished640 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 4, 1986
. *1134 Good faith under § 7217 exists if the disclosing defendant’s “conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Applying that standard requires this Court to determine not merely what § 6103 proscribes, but whether that law was clearly established at the time of the Release’s issuance.
Cited 25 timesPublished600 F. Supp. 443 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 18, 1984
Like all three .of the plaintiffs’ experts, the Court found Cox to be abundantly qualified in penology. … The evidence clearly establishes that for one guard safely to make regular rounds into the heart of the dayrooms, he must have a back-up guard at the door of the security vestibule.
Cited 10 timesPublishedWood v. Katy Independent School District
163 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2015
He did not qualify as a student with dyslexia under the evaluation established in 2004’s Texas Dyslexia Handbook. KISD 2004 Evaluation, CAR Vol. Ill at 1368-1403; 2004 Dyslexia Handbook, CAR Vol. … For the first time, under new 2006 IDEA regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.309 (a)(l)(v), established by the U.S.
Cited 5 timesPublishedMalone v. 107th District Court
District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 4, 2025
Additionally, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit. See Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11. … These are clearly judicial acts and meet 5th Circuit’s test for qualification as such.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna