Case law

Shintech Incorporated v. Olin Corporation

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 3, 2024

With that settled, I will turn to the real issue: whether the 53 documents qualify for work product protection. B. … satisfy the second prong of the test for establishing work product protection.

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?

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.

Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd. v. U.S. Department of Labor

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 25, 2023

To establish a substantial threat of irreparable injury or harm, the party moving for the preliminary injunction must clearly show a concrete injury or harm resulting from the opposing party’s actions. Texas First. … Although injuries that are purely economic in nature are generally not considered irreparable, DOL’s governmental immunity precludes economic recovery for Plaintiff and thus establishes the presence of irreparable harm.

Environmental Packaging Technologies, Ltd. v. Arch Insurance Company

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

to Rule 26(b)(3) make clear, “ImlJaterials assembled in the ordinary course of business, or pursuant to public requirements unrelated to litigation, or for other nonlitigation purposes are not under the qualified … immunity provided by this subdivision.”

Burdine v. Johnson

66 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 29, 1999

Such a per se rule is compelled by the Supreme Court’s clearly established Sixth Amendment jurisprudence. This Court now must apply the rule in the instant case. … There was clearly a breakdown in the adversarial process. See Cronic, 466 U.S. at 656-7 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 ; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .

Brown v. Crop Hail Management, Inc.

813 F. Supp. 519 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 3, 1993

Congress and the USDA have clearly demonstrated that the FCIC and FCIC reinsured entities are immune from suit based on state law. … The Court holds only that removal jurisdiction exists when, as here, "Congress has clearly manifested an intent to make causes of action ... removable to federal court.” ...

Texas Manufactures Housing Ass'n v. City of La Porte

974 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 8, 1996

Plaintiffs response to this argument is carefully qualified: [M]any HUD-code manufactured homes built today are multi-section.homes. … The case law clearly establishes that federal pre-emption of state law may occur in three ways: (1) when Congress expressly pre-empts state law; (2) when Congress legislates so comprehensively that it implies a congressional

Hartman v. Texaco, Inc.

119 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 6, 2000

Following FoH Halifax, Fifth Circuit authority establishes that in order to qualify as an ERISA plan, a severance pay plan must possess indicia of continuing administration by the employer. … Plaintiffs never obtained final approval of their request from the Committee, as the SISP Guidelines clearly required.

Rutland-Simpson v. Eli Lilly & Co.

940 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 10, 2013

To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show that ‘(1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for her position, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) others similarly situated … It is initially Plaintiffs burden to establish a prima facie ease.

Estate of Brown v. Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District

863 F. Supp. 2d 632 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 23, 2012

To succeed on a Rule 59(e) motion, a party must clearly establish at least one of the following factors: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, or (3) a manifest error of law … 1983 states: Every person who under color of [law] ... 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

Center for Marine Conservation v. Brown

917 F. Supp. 1128 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 21, 1996

Moreover, the record clearly establishes that the Federal Defendants are well aware of the problems with these TEDs, and have elected to deal with the problems through other measures short of recall, such as skill-building … Clearly, neither the November Opinion nor the ERP are substantive rules under these standards.

Bonner v. Texas City Independent School Dist. of Texas

305 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 2, 1969

To the contrary, it so clearly supported the defense as to cause this Court to conclude that defendants proved, not only by a preponderance of the evidence but beyond a reasonable doubt, that plaintiff’s race had nothing … Since at least 60 qualified students are required to justify a full unit, it was necessary to qualify this many in the short time remaining before the end of school in June. It was plaintiff’s responsibility to do this.

McBride v. Davis-Director TDCJ-CID

District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 25, 2020

As an inmate, plaintiff had a clearly established Eighth Amendment right not to be denied, by deliberate indifference, attention to his health and safety. See Gobert v. … It is well established that a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety; that is, the official must both be

Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp.

131 F.R.D. 668 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 1, 1990

In order to establish confidentiality, a person must establish that the information sought is a trade secret and then demonstrate that its disclosure might be harmful. Heat & Control, Inc. v. … This information clearly may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Interrogatory No. 5 The objection is sustained.

IHG HEALTHCARE v. Sebelius

717 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 13, 2010

The federal government pays Grace pursuant to the Medicare program established under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Medicare Act). … Irwin reasoned that when Congress decides to waive sovereign immunity, the presumption is that equitable tolling rules apply as they would against any private litigant, unless Congress intended otherwise.

Keiter v. Stracka

192 B.R. 150 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 9, 1996

However one difference between R. 9011 and § 303(i) is that § 303(i) is clearly a fee shifting statute, while R. 9011 is not. … They further assert that the bankruptcy court effectively granted Maher “immunity” from Rule 9011 sanctions by holding Maher to a different standard than Keiter.

Ray v. United States

385 F. Supp. 372 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 6, 1974

Pollard, Collette Lake Ray and Taylor Ray, the duly qualified and acting Independent Executors of the estate, and was heard- by the Court without a jury. … Such an expense is clearly one “incurred solely in determining estate tax liability”.

United States Ex Rel. Thompson v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.

938 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 24, 1996

The Fifth Circuit stated that to establish that Equifax committed fraud under the FCA, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the government was misled by Equifax’s application for the reporting business. … In the instant ease, the services rendered were services covered by Medicare. 3 Therefore, Peterson clearly involved false Medicare claims, while the instant case does not.

Holloway

District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 12, 2025

and the adverse employment decision, standing alone, is not within the ‘very close’ proximity that is necessary to establish causation.” … Because Holloway states that Hill told her the performance evaluation score was due to her grievance, Holloway has clearly shown a causal connection between the performance evaluation and her protected activity.