This product liability case arose after an 11-month-old child suffered severe injuries from ingesting Drano crystals stored in a kitchen cabinet secured by a Safety 1st spring latch manufactured by Dorel Juvenile Group. The mother had installed the latch without its catching device and without reading the package warnings or instructions. The plaintiff brought claims against Dorel for design, manufacturing, and marketing defects, breach of implied warranty, negligence, and gross negligence. The court granted Dorel's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on essential elements such as the existence of a defect, causation, or a safer alternative design.
The case involved the Association of Taxicab Operators challenging a Dallas city ordinance that provided 'head-of-the-line' privileges at Dallas Love Field airport to taxicabs operating on compressed natural gas (CNG), arguing it was preempted by the Clean Air Act's prohibition on state or local emissions standards for new motor vehicles. The court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits because the ordinance did not constitute an emissions standard but rather an incentive program limited to airport operations. The reasoning emphasized that Congress did not intend to preempt local incentives for low-emission vehicles or regulations of taxi service at airports, distinguishing it from cases involving broader mandates, and noted the ordinance's focus on use and operation rather than manufacturing standards.
In Cortez v. Raytheon Co., plaintiff Ann Cortez sued her former employer after being terminated in November 2006 following an extended medical leave of absence for pregnancy complications and post-partum depression. Cortez had received short- and long-term disability benefits through Raytheon's plan administered by MetLife, but those benefits ended in September 2006 when MetLife found insufficient medical evidence to continue them; Raytheon then required her to return to work by late November or face termination for job abandonment. The district court granted Raytheon's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice. The core reasoning was that Cortez could not establish she remained qualified for her position after exhausting FMLA leave and failing to provide documentation supporting further absence, nor could she show the specific intent to retaliate required for her ERISA claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1140.
This case is a tax dispute in which Southgate Master Fund, LLC, through its managing partner, claimed a roughly $1.1 billion capital loss on federal tax returns arising from a partnership transaction in Chinese non-performing loans. The court held that although the claimed loss appeared to satisfy the literal terms of the tax statute, the transaction that generated the high basis in the stock lacked economic substance and therefore had to be disregarded for tax purposes, so the IRS correctly disallowed the loss. The court further concluded that penalties were not warranted because the taxpayer had sought and relied in good faith on detailed advice from qualified tax professionals and had reasonable cause for its reporting position.
The case centered on a dispute over the horbiger.com domain name, which Texas International Property Associates (TIPA) had registered and used for advertising revenue, while Hoerbiger Holding AG owned the related HOERBIGER trademark and sought transfer of the domain after a WIPO panel ruled in its favor. TIPA sued to block the transfer and cancel Hoerbiger's trademark registration, asserting various federal and state claims including conversion and tortious interference, and Hoerbiger countersued for cyberpiracy under the ACPA along with trademark infringement and other claims. The court granted Hoerbiger partial summary judgment, dismissing all of TIPA's claims with prejudice and entering judgment for Hoerbiger on the cyberpiracy counterclaim. The ruling rested on TIPA's failure to present evidence of legitimate rights in the domain or damages, combined with findings that the domain was confusingly similar to the trademark and registered in bad faith.
The case was a trademark dispute in which the Dallas Cowboys and NFL Properties sued America's Team Properties, Inc. over the latter's use and federal registration of the phrase "America's Team" for clothing and related goods. The plaintiffs claimed superior common-law rights based on their use of the term since 1979 in connection with the football team, while the defendant asserted priority from a 1990 intent-to-use application and subsequent registration. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, cancelled the defendant's registration, and issued a permanent injunction, reasoning that the Cowboys had established prior use, a likelihood of consumer confusion, and dilution of a famous mark under federal and Texas law.