Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filterstxsd

2,190 results

1.21s

  • Moore

    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 timesUnknown
  • Group 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 timesUnknown
  • McPeters v. LexisNexis

    11 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 timesPublished
  • Barney 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 timesPublished
  • United 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 timesPublished
  • Dowthitt v. Johnson

    180 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 timesPublished
  • Prudential 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 timesPublished
  • Ariel 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 timesPublished
  • Trcka 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 timesUnknown
  • Santerre 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 timesPublished
  • Safety 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 timesPublished
  • Texaco, Inc. v. United States

    598 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 timesPublished
  • McNatt v. Chapa

    District 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 timesUnknown
  • United States v. Hernandez

    347 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 timesPublished
  • Differential 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 timesPublished
  • Kennedy 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 timesPublished
  • Johnson v. Sawyer

    640 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 timesPublished
  • Alberti v. Heard

    600 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 timesPublished
  • Wood 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 timesPublished
  • Malone 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

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.