Case law

Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 21, 2021

Extrinsic evidence establishes that the MSA is an insured contract under the CGL policy. … The only aspect established with certainty is that any such coverage may not exceed $500,000.

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

Parra

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 17, 2026

Moreover, “it is clearly proper in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to take judicial notice of matters of public record,” and the indictment is a public record. Norris v. … These conclusory allegations do not plausibly establish the absence of probable cause.

M-I LLC v. Stelly

733 F. Supp. 2d 759 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 17, 2010

Similarly, Knobloch and WES do not dispute that the tools themselves do not qualify for copyright protection. … M-I’s pleading, reproduced above, clearly brings a cause of *794 action for that covenant.

SureShot Golf Ventures, Inc. v. Topgolf International, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 8, 2021

Clearly, it is not hoarding the technology for itself. Topgolf is under no obligation to license Protracer just to SureShot. … Clearly, this “injury” did not arise because SureShot did not have access to Protracer or because Topgolf committed some untoward or anticompetitive act.

Flores v. Allen Hendershiedt Trucking, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 11, 2023

Evidence of Warner’s prior speeding violation is clearly relevant to Flores’s negligent entrustment claim. … (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified

Moore

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

A “reduction in hours” is a qualifying event. See 29 U.S.C. § 1163(2). … A reduction in hours is a “qualifying event” under COBRA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1163(2).

Hancock v. 179th District Court of Harris County Texas

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 17, 2025

“A complaint lacks an arguable basis in fact if, after providing the plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged are clearly baseless.” Rogers v. … Under Texas law, when a prisoner files a second or subsequent application for state habeas relief, the court may not consider the merits or grant relief unless “the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing

Nee v. Lumpkin

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 13, 2022

established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. … Moreover, petitioner does not establish the element of actual prejudice under Strickland.

Offiiong v. Holder

864 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 27, 2012

The complaint charged that INS’s revocation of his lawful permanent status was unlawful because INS had failed to follow the rescission procedures established in 8 U.S.C. § 1256 . Ex. 2. … Nevertheless mandamus relief is generally considered “a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations” where government officials have clearly failed to perform nondiscretionary duties. Kerr v. U.S.

In Re Zonagen, Inc. Securities Litigation

322 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 13, 2003

The statements at issue here were clearly material. … Plaintiffs have not shown that French is qualified to render an expert opinion relating to market expectations for start-up biotechnology companies, or that French has any specialized knowledge relating to biotechnology companies

Pena v. First State Bank of Odem

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 3, 2019

Religious Discrimination Pena’s burden to establish a prima facie case must be met by providing evidence “that she: (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for … Therefore, she was not qualified for the job.

American Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L.C.

717 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 9, 2010

Witnesses may be qualified as experts if they possess specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Fed. R.Evid. 702. … The definition of products-completed operations hazard clearly includes services rendered. See Massey, 40 F.3d 385 , 1994 WL 652520, at *2-3 .

Texas Alliance for Retired Americans v. Scott

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

The Fifth Circuit established the framework for vote denial or abridgement claims in Veasy v. … Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint clearly alleges specific facts relevant to the Arlington Heights and Gingles factors (Dkt. No. 1-4 at 16-101).

Jaddou

District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 21, 2025

With this necessary statutory background established, the Court turns to Defendant’s arguments in her motion to dismiss. B. … “[T]he word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion.” Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6, 13-14 (2024) (internal quotation omitted).

Hickinbotham

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 28, 2026

It is not the duty of the Court to search the record for evidence that might establish an issue of material fact. /d. b. … If those plaintiffs did not qualify, the Plaintiffs here clearly do not. Therefore, Defendant’s motion must be granted. b. Plaintiff Must be Closely Related to the Victim .

N.W. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Houston

27 F. Supp. 2d 754 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 7, 1998

With respect to the second scenario, the Fifth Circuit has already established that only intentional violations of a no-touch rule qualify as violations. … In light of the Supreme Court's statement in Boos quoted above, it is not clear whether mere references to "dehumanizing effects” may qualify as evidence of negative secondary effects.

MGM Well Services, Inc. v. Mega Lift Systems, LLC

505 F. Supp. 2d 359 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 25, 2007

MGM clearly gave Mega Lift actual notice on May 13, 2005, when it served the summons and complaint in this case. … This marking must be “substantially consistent and continuous” for it to qualify as constructive notice. See Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437, 1446 (Fed.Cir.1998).

Brunswick Corp. v. Filters, Inc.(Louisiana)

569 F. Supp. 1368 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 9, 1983

If the accused matter falls clearly within the claim, infringement is made out and that is the end of it. Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. … The prevailing party in a patent infringement case can be awarded attorney’s fees if the case qualifies as an “exceptional” *1378 one. 35 U.S.C. § 285 ; Livesay Window Co. v.

Trevino v. TFS Services LLC

District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 15, 2023

Manitowoc Cranes, L.L.C., 898 F.3d 607, 623–24 (5th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up) (“Rule 702 does not mandate that an expert be highly qualified in order to testify about a given issue. … Plaintiffs’ response argues that Garcia’s report “clearly outlines the facts and documents he reviewed in conducting his analysis.”51 The Court disagrees.