Case law

Wakat v. Montgomery County

471 F. Supp. 2d 759 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 12, 2007

1983 Section 1983 creates a cause of action versus “[e]very person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Plaintiffs assert that Williams was responsible for establishing, or failing to establish, policies, practices, procedures, and regulations for conduct of the sheriffs department and its employees.

Espitia v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 16, 2022

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), “[n]o judgment by default shall be entered by a court . . . unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C … The Court recognizes that parents typically qualify for solatium damages, given the inherently-close relationship between parent and child.

In Re Enron Cor. Sec., Dervivative &" Erisa" Lit.

463 F. Supp. 2d 628 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 30, 2006

This Court has been unable to find any other Circuit that has adopted this rule; clearly the Fifth Circuit has not. … qualified individuals to serve on the boards of public companies as independent outside directors, all to the detriment of business.

Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & "Erisa" Litigation v. UBS PaineWebber, Inc.

238 F. Supp. 3d 799 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 28, 2017

Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 644 , 108 S.Ct. 2063 , 100 L.Ed.2d 658 (1988), the Supreme Court indicate that in some situations the issuer is immune from liability in a firm commitment underwriting [where the public does not purchase … For example, UBS mandated that Enron pay it $375 million in cash in September and October 2001 (# 122 ¶¶ 182-86), virtually immunizing itself from Enron’s creditors in bankruptcy because in early April 2001 a UBS risk committee

Davis v. Zantac Maker of Ranitidine

District Court, S.D. Texas · May 31, 2023

the case and dismiss the complaint at any time if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden to establish these elements and “must clearly allege facts demonstrating each element.” Id. at 338 (cleaned up).

United States v. Bp Products North America Inc.

610 F. Supp. 2d 655 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 12, 2009

The government explained that the clause at issue is a standard clause and is never used to immunize postoffense conduct. 20 *680 (Docket Entry No. 66 at 90-91). … The answer to this question, although at times obvious, helps the auditor to identify clearly the boundaries of the population under review. 2. Identify the Population Under Review.

Jackson v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 28, 2022

The failure to meet the statute of limitations “must result from external factors beyond [the plaintiff’s] control; delays of [his] own making do not qualify.” … The plaintiff has the burden of establishing that equitable tolling is warranted. See Granger v. Aaron’s, Inc., 636 F.3d 708, 712 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Wilson v.

Amador Gonzalez v. Harris County

District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 1, 2021

They are clearly completely distinct matters. Gonzalez otherwise gives no other instances that would suggest a pattern with the similarity, specificity, and numerosity required.” … Gonzalez’s argument also relies on Chapter 57 of the Texas Government Code to suggest that the County had to have qualified interpreters with its officers at all time — even referring to qualified interpreters as another

Butler v. Quarterman

576 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 4, 2008

Under the AED-PA federal habeas relief based upon claims that were adjudicated on the merits cannot be granted unless the state court’s decision (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … established [Supreme Court precedent].”

Kelly

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 27, 2026

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. … A claim has no arguable basis in fact if “after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless.” Talib v.

Dolling v. Amanda Hess Corp.

83 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 16, 2000

My personal belief that chronic, massive breathing of petroleum vapors may have contributed to this is quite unrelated to this claim [Plaintiff was attempting to qualify for long-term disability insurance] and this firm. … This letter, by itself, establishes Plaintiffs knowledge of an injury and its cause.

Martin v. Anslinger, Inc.

794 F. Supp. 640 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 26, 1992

In this case, however, we do have direct evidence of an impermissible motive, as well as circumstantial evidence from which an impermissible motive can clearly be inferred. … Robledo clearly knew about the damaged cable on his machine, as he so testified.

Patitu v. Nationsbank of Texas

90 F. Supp. 2d 781 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2000

Buckner clearly informed Patitu that “these expectations required him to greatly improve his keyboard skills.” (Id.). … A prima facie case is established once the plaintiff has proved that she (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for her position; (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) was replaced by

Cooper v. Wal-Mart Transportation, LLC

662 F. Supp. 2d 757 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 24, 2009

But the EEOC Charge, which Wal-Mart clearly received, asserts race as its basis. … As to the second element, Wal-Mart stated in an answer to an interrogatory: “Cooper was not qualified for the position at the time of his termination.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Norris

830 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 2, 1993

To the contrary, it was clearly within their authority to ratify or approve loans brought before them by the officers and employees of the thrift. … Wheat, 970 F.2d 124 (5th Cir.1992), establishes that the business judgment rule does not preclude an action for negligence against disinterested directors, is unpersuasive.

GDF Realty Investments, Ltd. v. Norton

169 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 30, 2001

See Groome, 234 *661 F.3d at 204 (quoting Morrison, 120 S.Ct. at 1750 ). 17 Plaintiffs’ alleged take of the Cave Species by their planned development of the Property clearly qualifies as economic activity. … The activity regulated in this case is clearly connected to interstate commerce.

TIG Insurance v. Sedgwick James of Washington

184 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 26, 2001

The Agency Agreement between Sedgwick and Lumbermens clearly shows that Sedgwick was an agent for Lumber-mens to a limited extent and with limited authority. … Nor is there admissible evidence in the record to establish a factual basis for such as distinction.

Johnson v. Houston Independent School District

930 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 13, 1996

Claims Against HISD Asserted Pursuant to § 1983 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a private right of action for the deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the constitution-or laws of the United States. … City of San Antonio, 77 F.3d 823, 828 (5th Cir.1996) (recognizing a clearly established liberty interest in speech).

Millis Development & Construction, Inc. v. America First Lloyd's Insurance

809 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 12, 2011

Therefore, under the plainest reading of the Additional Insured Provision, Trendmaker qualifies as an additional insured under the America First Policy. 61 *629 B. … Clearly, in this case, TMC, Millis and Trendmaker all intended for Trendmaker to have coverage under the America First Policy.

American Equity Insurance v. Castlemane Farms, Inc.

220 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 6, 2002

On the other hand, “the insurer bears the burden of establishing that an exclusion in the policy constitutes an-avoidance of or affirmative defense to coverage.” … The Policy clearly defines “irritant or contaminant” to include “any liquid ... chemicals [or] waste.” (CGL Policy ¶ V.15).