The case Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas v. Federal Highway Administration concerns a legal challenge to a proposed highway project in the South Texas region, specifically its effects on the Edwards Aquifer, water resources, and endangered species such as Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis. The court describes historical population growth, suburban development, and increased vehicle use since the mid-20th century, noting the resulting pressures on land, water, and natural habitats amid recurring droughts. It frames the central issue as the need to manage finite resources while accommodating more Homo sapiens and their infrastructure. The opinion concludes by addressing regulatory compliance for the project under federal environmental standards, reasoning that development must account for impacts on both human needs and dependent species without providing a specific holding in the excerpted text.
In Whitehead v. Hidden Tavern, Inc., bartenders and servers sued their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid minimum wages, alleging the tavern could not claim a tip credit because it failed to meet statutory requirements. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability, finding no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant violated the tip credit rules by allowing a co-owner to participate in a tip pool and by maintaining a policy requiring employees to cover cash shortages from their tips. The decision rested on the principle that the employer bears the burden of proving compliance with the two prerequisites for the tip credit—informing employees of the provision and ensuring all tips are retained by tipped employees—along with evidence from depositions confirming the violations. The motion to strike deposition evidence was denied, and the case was referred for determination of damages.
In Jasper v. Thaler, petitioner Ray Jasper III sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his 2000 Bexar County conviction for capital murder and death sentence, based on the 1998 robbery and stabbing death of music producer David Alejandro, to which Jasper had confessed and testified about his role in planning and executing the crime with accomplices. The court reviewed the undisputed facts of the offense, the guilt-innocence and punishment phases of the trial, and the state habeas proceedings, including claims such as the prosecution's alleged violation of Batson v. Kentucky in jury selection. The court denied all habeas relief, concluding that Jasper was not entitled to it, but granted a certificate of appealability specifically on the Batson claim due to its potential merit for further review.
In Martinez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, the plaintiff filed suit in Texas state court seeking to enjoin foreclosure on his home, alleging breach of contract based on the mortgage servicer's failure to comply with federal HUD regulations requiring loss mitigation efforts before foreclosure. The defendant removed the case to federal court on diversity and federal question grounds, and the plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that the amount in controversy was not met because it should be measured by his limited equity in the property rather than the home's full value. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that diversity jurisdiction existed because the object of the litigation was the home itself and the amount in controversy was properly measured by its fair market value, which exceeded $75,000 based on the plaintiff's own declarations and county appraisal records.
This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Clark Contracting Services, Inc., concerning whether Wells Fargo Equipment Finance held a perfected security interest in six trucks after purchasing an assigned loan from CIT Group. The bankruptcy court had granted partial summary judgment to Clark, holding that Wells Fargo lacked perfection under the Texas Certificate of Title Act because the titles had not been reissued to name Wells Fargo as lienholder, leaving it as an unsecured creditor. On de novo review of legal issues, the district court reversed, concluding that retitling upon lien assignment is permissive rather than mandatory under the TCOTA, its 2009 legislative amendment, and its interaction with UCC Article 9. The court reasoned that the statute's plain language, legislative history, and public policy considerations show the Texas Legislature did not intend to require new titling for assignees to maintain perfected status. The matter was remanded with instructions to grant Wells Fargo's motion for partial summary judgment.
This case involved post-judgment motions in a medical malpractice action against the United States arising from the death of Doris Tello, where the court had previously awarded plaintiffs $313,390.91 in damages after a bench trial but applied Texas's $250,000 cap on non-economic damages to the loss of her services as a wife and mother. Plaintiffs moved to alter the judgment, arguing that damages for the loss of household services such as cooking and childcare were pecuniary or economic in nature and thus exempt from the cap, citing definitions in Texas statutes and case law like Moore v. Lillebo. The court denied plaintiffs' motion, holding that under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provisions and precedents such as Reeder v. Allport, such losses qualify as non-economic damages subject to the cap because they are not objectively verifiable pecuniary losses with actual replacement costs incurred. Defendant's motion was granted only to correct the post-judgment interest rate language to align with federal statutes, but denied in all other respects.