This case concerned whether the Texas Democratic Party's method of allocating delegates to its state nominating convention under the 'Texas two-step' system required preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs, including LULAC of Texas and individual voters, alleged that the formula, which used raw vote totals from a prior gubernatorial election, could disadvantage Latino-majority districts. The court denied the Party's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Section 5 applies to the delegate allocation changes. The core reasoning followed Supreme Court precedent in Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, holding that such party procedures implemented under state authority constitute covered changes that must be precleared for potential discriminatory effects, regardless of whether actual discrimination is shown in this proceeding.
In this case, Texas Taco Cabana and T.C. Management sought a declaratory judgment that Taco Cabana of New Mexico had no rights to develop additional restaurants or rights of first refusal in New Mexico under a 1994 Development Agreement that had expired or been superseded, along with claims of breach of a License Agreement. The defendants counterclaimed with allegations of violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with contract. The court addressed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the counterclaims, resolving procedural objections about timeliness and applying Texas choice-of-law rules to determine that Texas law governed the dispute. The court granted the motion in part by dismissing the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act claims and the tortious interference claims against Carrols as to contracts between specific parties, while denying dismissal of the other claims.
In Dunbar v. Barnhart, the plaintiff sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, asserting inability to work since 1999 due to a left hand impairment and possible cardiac issues. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and affirmed the Commissioner's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled. The court concluded that the decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record, that precedent such as Watson v. Barnhart did not require an explicit finding on the ability to maintain employment in every case, and that medical testimony showed no disabling cardiac condition.
This case concerned the United States' effort to recover unpaid federal income taxes, penalties, and interest owed by the deceased Roosevelt Dickerson for tax years 1987 through 1990, including enforcement of tax liens on his real property at 10488 Lambda Drive in El Paso, Texas. After Dickerson's death, his sole heir and executor John Tate distributed the property by selling it via contract for deed, and the United States sought a deficiency judgment holding Tate personally liable under 31 U.S.C. § 3713 for the remaining unpaid debt. The court granted in part and denied in part the United States' motion for summary judgment, finding Tate personally liable to the extent of the lesser of the distribution value or the government debt because the estate was insolvent, he had notice of the tax claims, and he distributed assets before satisfying the government's priority claim under the statute; the exact amount of liability was referred to a magistrate judge for further proceedings. The ruling relied on Tate's failure to respond to requests for admission establishing the statutory elements and on precedents interpreting the priority statute's application to estate distributions.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company sued the City of El Paso and El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding a proposed city ordinance imposing fees on gross revenues and District procedures and charges for telephone lines crossing irrigation ditches and canals, claiming violations of the Federal Telecommunications Act and Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act along with related state statutes. After the City settled its claims, the remaining dispute involved cross-motions for summary judgment and the District's counterclaim alleging trespass or uncompensated taking of property. The court granted Southwestern Bell's motion for summary judgment, denied the District's motion, and dismissed the trespass counterclaim, holding that Texas law authorized the utility's crossings within public rights-of-way without additional fees or permission from the District.
This case involved an appeal by the San Antonio Express-News and an editor from a bankruptcy court's order permitting Mexican investors in cross-border insolvency proceedings to file claims and notices using account numbers instead of names, and sealing a portion of a related evidentiary hearing, based on fears of kidnapping and violence in Mexico. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's decision and vacated the confidentiality order in full. The court found that the investors' evidence, including testimony, travel warnings, and news articles about crime rates, was insufficient to rebut the strong presumption of public access to court records under the First Amendment and common law. It noted that Bankruptcy Rules 2019 and 3001 require disclosure of names, and no adequate showing of good cause justified the protective measures.