Case law

Newby v. Enron Corp.

540 F. Supp. 2d 759 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 24, 2007

Section 5 states clearly that the TSA “shall not apply” to the transactions it lists unless “specifically provided” for otherwise. … Liability clearly will extend to any buyer of the registered security and no privity limitation or requirement is included.

Palacios v. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 21, 2020

Hawaii involved an Establishment Clause claim. 363 F. Supp. 3d. at 1093– 94, 1094 n.138. … Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.’” 138 S. Ct. at 2418 (quoting Fiallo y. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977)).

National Union Fire Insurance v. Puget Plastics Corp.

649 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 12, 2009

Seitz testified to the basic tenants that qualify these records as business records under Rule 803(6). … He was clearly an attorney authorized to speak for National Union at the time in question.

Pequeno-Martinez v. Trominski

281 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 8, 2003

Cyr as well as proposed regulations published that month which are intended to establish procedures for LPRs who qualify for relief under St. Cyr. See 67 Fed.Reg. 52627, 52628 (Aug. 13, 2002). … However, its predecessor clearly did. Santos, 228 F.3d at 596 .

Davis v. Lumpkin

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 24, 2021

“Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt.” Id. … Davis has failed to demonstrate that the state court proceedings were contrary to, or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or involved an unreasonable determination of the facts

Mmar Group, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co.

187 F.R.D. 282 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 8, 1999

Accidents — at least avoidable ones — ■ should not be immune from the reach of the rule. … succeed on a motion brought under 60(b)(2) based on newly discovered evidence, the movant must demonstrate (1) that it exercised due diligence in obtaining the information and (2) “the evidence is material and controlling and clearly

Powers v. Broken Hill Proprietary (USA), Inc.

District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 21, 2022

Powers had actively applied to jobs within BHP, establishing his interest in open positions. … BHP argues that Powers cannot show that he was clearly better qualified than the hired candidates. (Docket Entry No. 32 at 29 (citing Price v. Fed. Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715, 720 n.2 (5th Cir. 2002)).

Wilkinson v. Humble Independent School District

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 10, 2024

Here, Wilkinson’s pleading clearly meets the first two elements—he has identified an official policy and policymaker. … This policy does not say anything about location or jurisdiction of school district police officers, other than that the officers shall have powers, privileges, and immunities “within the jurisdiction of the District.”

Yerby v. University of Houston

230 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 25, 2002

The evidence in this case clearly shows, however, that Yer-by’s official job title, salary, and benefits remained the same after she filed her discrimination complaint. … Instead, U of H maintains that Yerby was not chosen for other positions because she was not the most qualified candidate.

Miles-Hickman v. David Powers Homes, Inc.

613 F. Supp. 2d 872 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 24, 2009

The admissible evidence fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the discovery request was a proximate cause Hickman’s loss of her Trendmaker/Spherion job in February 2008, much less establish proximate … diligence and that there were substantially equivalent jobs available that she could have discovered and for which she was qualified. 23 .

Holick v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 8, 2020

To determine whether a particular plan qualifies as an employee welfare benefit plan subject to ERISA, the Fifth Circuit asks whether a plan exists, whether it falls within the safe-harbor provision established by the … The Court thus finds that the plan at issue qualifies as an ERISA plan. ii.

Davis v. CenterPoint Energy, Inc

District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 13, 2025

In other words, to qualify as a protected activity, the employee's conduct must have “opposed” the employer's practice, and that opposed practice must have been unlawful. Scott v. U.S. … Following Holowecki, the EEOC changed the intake form to require employees to clearly express their intent by checking one of two boxes. Brahmana v. Lembo, No. C-09-00106 RMW, 2010 WL 965296, at *1 (N.D.Cal.

Johnston v. Dexel

373 F. Supp. 3d 764 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 14, 2019

When a court has dismissed the federal claims that establish subject-matter jurisdiction before trial, the court may, and often should, remand the remaining state-law claims. Batiste v. … His application stated that he was "the duly appointed and qualified Independent Executor of the Estate of Willie Jo Mills."

Bancroft Life & Casualty ICC, Ltd. v. FFD Resources II, LLC

884 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 2, 2012

Ventures and FFD2, who bear the burden of establishing that they suffered a lost as a result of the alleged breach of contract to establish standing, have not identified any language in the insurance policy that would support … Servs., Inc., 376 F.3d 501, 504 (5th Cir.2004) (“For a forum selection clause to be exclusive, it must go beyond establishing that a particular forum will have jurisdiction and must clearly demonstrate the parties' intent

McPeters v. Lexisnexis

910 F. Supp. 2d 981 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 3, 2012

Because Plaintiff alleges e-filing fees were illegally collected, Defendant’s actions do not qualify as a taking. The Court, therefore, grants Defendant’s Motion with respect to the takings claim. 4. … The e-filing *994 charges are very clearly and directly passed on without the issue of calculating the “pass-on” charge that the Abbott court contemplated, and there is no concern of the collection of duplicate damages.

Kilgarlin v. Martin

252 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 2, 1966

This language clearly implies, even if it does not decide, the invidiousness per se does not arise by a mere showing of a ratio of 1.7:1. … As is generally understood in the United States, the franchise is the personal right of the qualified individual to vote.

Pet Silk, Inc. v. Jackson

481 F. Supp. 2d 824 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2007

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which will only be granted if the movant has clearly carried the burden as to all four elements. … “[A] particular ‘mark’ qualifies for trademark protection only to the extent that it distinguishes a product.

Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata

257 F.R.D. 127 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 24, 2009

“A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) ‘must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence’ and ‘cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should … Under Full Faith and Credit, “[a] final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land

Weaver v. United States Coast Guard

857 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 30, 1994

Once this burden is met, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 585-87 , 106 S.Ct. at 1355-56 ; Leonard v. … But, this evidence is clearly hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 and thus must be excluded from consideration under Rule 802. 3 .

Polaris Engineering, Inc. v. Texas International Terminals, Ltd.

District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 23, 2023

LEGAL STANDARDS “In diversity cases such as this, state law applies to claims of attorney–client privilege, while federal law governs whether the items are immune from discovery under … Specifically, TXIT fails to establish that GCC was a joint or co-client of Andrews Myers. TXIT also fails to establish that GCC was TXIT’s client’s representative as defined by Rule 503.