Case law

Feds for Medical Freedom v. Garland

District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 29, 2024

Hearst Tr., 500 F.3d 454, 461 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007) (stating that “it is clearly proper” to “take judicial notice of matters of public record” when deciding a motion to dismiss); Terrebonne v. … immunity; and (4) Plaintiffs’ allegations do not support availability of damages under RFRA. 1.

Swilley

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 16, 2026

The Fifth Circuit robustly and clearly affirmed the summary judgment ruling. … Swilley addresses only qualified immunity, which is irrelevant because she makes no claims against Diaz in his individual capacity. (Docket Entry No. 18 at 19).

Grogan v. Savings of America, Inc.

118 F. Supp. 2d 741 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 7, 1999

The statements explaining her absence as due to psychiatric problems qualify as both opinion and truth. … To establish a prima facie case of intentional age discrimination, a plaintiff must show that (1) she was discharged; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) she was within a protected class (over the age of forty) at

Merrill v. Exxon Corporation

387 F. Supp. 458 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 23, 1974

The program qualifies within the § 785.32 regulation as beyond compensation, because it satisfies three requisites: (1) the bargaining agreement establishing the apprenticeship program contains no language stating that classroom … The Act was clearly designed to reduce for employers the liability for compensation in preliminary and postliminary working situations.

Texas First National Bank v. Wu

347 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 9, 2004

Relief must be denied unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. See Canal Auth. of Florida, 489 F.2d at 573. … To establish a substantial threat of irreparable injury or harm, Defendants must clearly show some concrete injury or harm resulting from the Plaintiffs’ actions. See Fund for Animals v.

Hurt v. Del Papa Distributing Co., LP

425 F. Supp. 2d 853 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 15, 2004

Accepting for present purposes that discovery materials may qualify as “other papers” and thus trigger the removal deadlines, see Hines v. … AC & S, Inc., 128 F.Supp.2d 1003, 1006 (N.D.Tex.2001) (citing cases), the events underlying the present litigation demonstrate that the Parties’ communications during discovery do anything but establish notice of FLSA claims

Harris v. Johnson

323 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 29, 2004

The statute clearly does not require a particular mixture of drugs in its mandate to execute by lethal injection. … If Plaintiffs contentions are correct, the denial of a TRO will subject Plaintiff to an excruciating death, which certainly qualifies as irreparable harm.

Blome v. Aerospatiale Helicopter Corp.

924 F. Supp. 805 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 30, 1996

. § 1441 (b), because one of the Defendants is a foreign state as defined in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1603 . … Because ■ the Supreme Court in Louisiana II clearly held that Congress fixed and approved' the Texas seaward boundary at three leagues offshore, 363 U.S. at 64 , 80 S.Ct. at 997 (“Texas’ maritime boundary was established

Cortez Burlingame v. Galveston County

District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 27, 2020

Sheriff Trochesset claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity as Plaintiffs cannot show (i) that he committed a constitutional violation; and (1i) that his actions were objectively unreasonable … in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question.

McIlyar v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 18, 2025

As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. … as the M&R correctly explained, “‘whether the City had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason’ for the adverse action ‘is not pertinent until the summary judgment stage, and even then, only after a plaintiff establishes

State of Tex. v. Mosbacher

783 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 30, 1992

The federal courts have a very long history of qualifying expert witnesses and deciding cases based upon the testimony of those experts and should not refuse to hear a proper case simply because it is “difficult.” 16 If such … Therefore, action taken by the Bureau may be viewed as agency action. 9 . 13 U.S.C. § 141 (e)(1) states: If— (A) in the administration of any program established by or under Federal law which provides benefits to State or

Redeemed Christian Church of God v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.

331 F. Supp. 3d 684 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 2, 2018

"It is well settled that the applicant for a visa bears the burden of establishing eligibility." Id. … The Church also argues that the AAO "clearly misinterpreted" Sekumade's original affidavit, which stated: "I responded to the Customs Officer that this shipment was not a business transaction but a shipment to a friend, and

Corpus Christi Peoples' Baptist Church, Inc. v. Texas Department of Human Resources

481 F. Supp. 1101 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 11, 1979

There are clearly defined exceptions to the Younger doctrine. … The facts in the present case clearly match each criterion above.

Buckner Trucking, Inc. v. United States

354 F. Supp. 1210 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 23, 1973

Anglo-Canadian Shipping Co., 335 F.2d 255 (9th Cir. 1964). *1217 [A] certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing the whole or any part of the operations covered by the application, if it is … The hearing examiner found that each of the twelve applicants was an established motor carrier of iron and steel articles.

Ginzburg v. Memorial Healthcare Systems, Inc.

993 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 24, 1997

In addition, Defendants contend that they are entitled to immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 11101-11152 , and pursuant to a release executed by Ginzburg on April 27, 1995, which … In light of this ruling, the Court does not find it necessary to address Defendants’ contention that they are entitled to immunity under HCQIA or the release executed by Ginzburg in April of 1995. IV.

Holbrook v. United States Nat. Bank

20 F.2d 961 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 25, 1927

The evidence establishes without contradiction the following facts: That S. L. … So plaintiff’s general proposition, that the city is bound by the knowledge of those by whose services the benefit was obtained, must be qualified to the extent that plaintiff must establish, in order to recover here, that

United States v. Diehl

460 F. Supp. 1282 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 6, 1978

The Court has also concluded that the evidence presented at this second hearing was sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the income generated by (a) the receipt of the $9,000.00 commissions, and (b) the issuance … Therefore, any evidence which establishes or tends circumstantially to establish Mr.

BP Exploration & Production Inc. v. Cashman Equipment Corp.

132 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 22, 2015

No language qualifies Cash-man’s capacity or reflects that it was executed as an agent of the Joint Venture. … Clearly there are genuine issues of law and fact here.

Rx. Com Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.

364 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2005

Greenleaf clearly intended for Sentry to' come to its aid and defend this lawsuit.... Clearly this is a first party claim.” Id. at 925. … The fact that the insurer pays claims for an insured’s loss indirectly does not immunize that insurer from article 21.55. D. Is Article 21.55 Unworkable As Applied to Claims for a Defense?

State of Texas v. Biden

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 26, 2023

Speak Clearly The Parties dispute whether Congress, via the Procurement Act, spoke clearly in granting the President the power to unilaterally raise the minimum wage … Courts are split on whether the President’s immunity from APA review established by the Supreme Court in Franklin extends only to instances where “the President has final constitutional or statutory responsibility