James E. Kinkeade

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.

torts & liability

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.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

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.

labor & employmenthealthcare

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.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved parents of Texas public school students challenging the constitutionality of the state pledge of allegiance after the 2007 addition of the words "under God," claiming it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court granted summary judgment to Governor Perry and denied the plaintiffs' motion, finding the pledge constitutional. The core reasoning was that the phrase represents a historical patriotic acknowledgment of religion's role in the nation's founding, akin to the national pledge, and does not coerce religious observance since recitation remains voluntary and is not equivalent to school-sponsored prayer.

religious liberty

The case involved an appeal by creditor The Cadle Company from a bankruptcy court's approval of a trustee's settlement of alter ego, fraudulent conveyance, and related claims against a debtor and affiliated entities for $37,500. Cadle, holding the bulk of the unsecured debt, had objected, arguing its later $50,000 offer to purchase the litigation rights was superior and that the court should have ordered an auction of the claims. The district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy judge properly weighed the uncertain legal theories, the expense and duration of further litigation, and the speculative chance of recovery, and that no auction was required under Fifth Circuit precedent. The court noted that Cadle had the opportunity to bid earlier but declined, and that bankruptcy courts have discretion to approve settlements without formal sale procedures when the facts support it.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute arising from a fatal trucking accident in Florida. Plaintiff OOIDA Risk Retention Group issued a commercial motor carrier policy to Tony Moses and sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify defendant Shamoyne Williams in a state-court negligence action brought by Moses's family members, citing policy exclusions including an occupant hazard exclusion (OHE). Intervenors argued that Williams qualified as an insured under the policy and that the OHE was unenforceable. Applying Texas law and the eight-corners rule, the court denied OOIDA's summary judgment motion, granted the intervenors' motion, held that the OHE violated public policy requiring motor carriers to maintain minimum financial responsibility, found coverage triggered with a duty to defend, and determined that OOIDA's potential liability could reach the full $1,000,000 policy limits.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Anne Ewbank suing defendant ChoicePoint Inc. after an initial criminal background check report erroneously indicated a conviction, leading her prospective employer Fieldglass to withdraw a job offer; ChoicePoint corrected the report within days upon learning of the error. Ewbank brought claims including tortious interference, defamation, negligence, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and related state statutes. The court granted ChoicePoint's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice, reasoning that state-law tort claims were preempted by the FCRA absent evidence of malice, that ChoicePoint had complied with FCRA reinvestigation and accuracy requirements, and that Ewbank failed to show she was a consumer under the DTPA or meet elements of the other statutory claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a patent infringement suit brought by inventor John Gammino against Southwestern Bell Telephone (SWB) over two patents (the '125 and '650 patents) describing methods to selectively block international calls from payphones based on specific digit sequences in dialing plans. Gammino claimed SWB infringed by using similar call-blocking techniques on its network lines, including payphone and inmate lines. The court granted SWB's motion for summary judgment, holding the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Gammino's own earlier public implementation of the method constituted anticipatory prior art. Alternatively, even after claim construction, the court found no infringement because SWB's systems analyzed the second plurality of digits to validate carriers, which fell outside the patents' negative limitations requiring blocking irrespective of that plurality.

business & regulatory

This case concerns competing claims to funds garnished from a post-judgment settlement in a state court lawsuit brought by William Brosseau against several companies. The United States sought to collect on a large restitution judgment from a prior criminal case, which is treated as a tax lien under federal law, while attorney Charles McGarry asserted an interest under a contingency fee contract and two claimants asserted child support liens. The court granted motions to intervene by the attorney and the child support claimants, then established a priority order for distributing the funds. McGarry received first priority because his attorney's fee contract created a super-priority under the Internal Revenue Code that trumps tax liens and vested before the other claims; the government received second priority as the next lienholder, followed by Schneider and Perez. The court reasoned that the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act does not limit the government's enforcement rights in this context involving a tax-type restitution lien.

criminal lawtaxesfamily lawprocedure

The case involves Watchguard Technologies suing former Vice President of Americas Sales Michael Valentine and competitor Sonicwall for allegedly breaching a Proprietary Information, Invention, and Non-Competition Agreement and an Employee Retention Agreement by misappropriating confidential information and trade secrets and soliciting Watchguard employees after Valentine joined Sonicwall in a similar sales role. Watchguard sought a preliminary injunction to stop the alleged ongoing violations and resulting harm to its business relationships and revenue. The court denied the injunction after finding that Watchguard had not shown a substantial threat of irreparable injury, because company witnesses testified to specific monetary losses (such as $10-12 million annually from affected accounts) that could be quantified and remedied through damages at a later stage. The court applied the four-part test for preliminary injunctions under Fifth Circuit precedent but did not reach the remaining elements after the irreparable-harm requirement failed.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

Ericsson was named in class action lawsuits alleging that users of its wireless phones suffered bodily injuries from exposure to radio frequency radiation and sought relief including headsets. Its insurer St. Paul denied any duty to defend under nine commercial general liability policies, prompting Ericsson to sue for a declaratory judgment on breach of contract and violation of the Texas Insurance Code. The court granted Ericsson partial summary judgment, ruling that the underlying complaints potentially alleged covered bodily injury from an occurrence (including continuous or repeated exposure) and that St. Paul therefore breached its duty to defend. It also granted St. Paul's cross-motion in part, holding the Insurance Code claim time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations while finding the breach claim timely under the four-year period.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Hargrave v. TXU Corp., former employees and plan participants sued TXU and its officers under ERISA Section 502 for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that the company thrift plan imprudently purchased TXU stock at inflated prices due to misleading statements about the company's finances. The named plaintiffs had all terminated employment and fully withdrawn their plan accounts before filing suit. The court denied the renewed motion for class certification, ruling that the named plaintiffs lacked standing because they were no longer ERISA "participants" or "beneficiaries" entitled to receive benefits. Under ERISA's definitions, standing requires a reasonable expectation of returning to covered employment or a colorable claim to vested benefits; the plaintiffs instead sought only speculative damages for losses that might have occurred, which did not qualify. Because the named plaintiffs had no standing, they could not represent the proposed class.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved Nelcenia Haralson suing the Secretary of Defense, claiming that the Army Air Force Exchange Service terminated her in retaliation for her protected Equal Employment Opportunity activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court assumed Haralson established a prima facie case of retaliation but found that the defendant provided legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination, including failing to report to duty, being absent without leave, and refusing a fitness-for-duty exam. Haralson failed to present evidence showing these reasons were pretextual or that her protected activity was the "but for" cause of her termination.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involves the United States suing Dr. James David Key to collect unpaid federal income taxes totaling over $1.5 million for several years in the 1980s and 1990s. The government sought summary judgment to establish the tax liability, order the sale of Key's real properties to satisfy the debt, and determine the priority of payments to creditors. The court granted the motion, relying on official tax forms as presumptive proof of liability and finding that Key failed to provide competent evidence to dispute the amounts or claim credits for alleged payments. It ordered the sale of three properties after accounting for mortgages and taxes, with remaining proceeds distributed to judgment creditors in specified order.

taxesproperty

The case concerned Kitty Hawk Air Cargo's challenge to a ruling by the Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board that its airline pilots were not exempt professionals under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act and thus subject to minimum wage requirements on USPS contracts. The court granted summary judgment to Kitty Hawk and denied the Department's motion, setting aside the ARB's decision. The core reasoning was that the pilots met the regulatory tests for the professional exemption by exercising discretion and judgment in flight decisions and receiving guaranteed salaries far exceeding the $250 weekly minimum, and that the ARB's interpretation requiring a college degree was arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Mid-Continent Insurance Company over their respective shares of a $1.5 million settlement paid on behalf of their mutual insured, Kinsel Industries, in a personal injury lawsuit arising from a car accident in a highway construction zone. The court conducted a bench trial and determined that Liberty Mutual was entitled to subrogation from Mid-Continent in the amount of $550,000. The core reasoning was that Mid-Continent's $1 million CGL policy and Liberty Mutual's $1 million CGL policy provided primary coverage at the same level, while Liberty Mutual's umbrella policy was not triggered because the combined CGL limits were sufficient; thus, the insurers shared equal responsibility under the CGL policies, and Mid-Continent's prior payments left a remaining balance of $550,000 owed to Liberty Mutual. The court rejected claims that Liberty Mutual had engaged in deceptive trade practices.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In this Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, Asbestos Claims Management Corporation (ACMC), the debtor, filed a voluntary petition in 2002 and proposed a Third Amended Plan of Reorganization to address its asbestos-related liabilities. The plan includes the creation of a trust for bodily injury claims and seeks permanent injunctions under sections 524(g) and 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to channel and limit certain asbestos claims against the debtor and related parties. After hearings, the Bankruptcy Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending confirmation, which the District Court reviewed and adopted in full. The District Court confirmed the plan in its entirety, approved technical modifications, overruled objections, and issued the requested injunctions, finding that the plan satisfied all applicable requirements of the Bankruptcy Code for confirmation and implementation of the channeling injunctions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability