Mary Lou Robinson

This case is a bankruptcy appeal arising from a 2001 dispute over the purchase of a Beechcraft King Air 200 airplane, where buyer Nick Corp. (owned by Nick Lopardo) sued seller JNS Aviation and related entities for breach of contract after issues with the plane; a default judgment was entered in Delaware, followed by claims in Texas federal court for fraud, fraudulent transfers, and piercing the corporate veil after the Sheltons transferred JNS assets to new entities. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's rulings in favor of Nick Corp. on all appealed issues, including that Nick Corp. had standing, the corporate veil could be pierced to hold individuals and successor entities liable, and fraudulent inducement occurred. The court reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, finding no reversible mistakes in the bankruptcy court's determinations on alter-ego liability, res judicata barring attacks on the default judgment, and damages calculations. The opinion notes the underlying facts and prior proceedings in detail but upholds the outcomes without addressing every contested point.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Colony National Insurance Company seeking a declaratory judgment on whether its general liability insurance policy covered claims from three lawsuits arising from the asphyxiation deaths of dock workers due to leaking argon gas from a tanktainer owned by Specialty Trailer Leasing, Inc. The court granted summary judgment to Colony, holding that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Specialty. The reasoning centered on the policy's exclusion for bodily injuries from hazardous materials, including pollutants, where "pollutants" are defined as irritants or contaminants like chemicals; drawing from a similar Fifth Circuit precedent, the court determined that dangerously elevated concentrations of naturally occurring argon gas qualify as a pollutant under the exclusion.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves hourly workers at a meat-packing facility who sued their employer and related entities under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages and overtime related to activities such as donning equipment, working off the clock, and inadequate breaks, under the Equal Pay Act for alleged gender-based pay disparities, and for retaliation. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability. It granted the defendants' summary judgment motion in part by dismissing certain plaintiffs whose claims were time-barred, ruling that fraudulent concealment did not apply to extend the limitations period, finding that some corporate entities were not employers under the FLSA and that the alter ego doctrine did not apply, and holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact on the Equal Pay Act claims because evidence showed women and men in similar positions received comparable pay. The court denied summary judgment on the remaining FLSA wage, overtime, and retaliation issues, finding genuine disputes of material fact that required a trial.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Willingham v. Department of Labor, a pro se plaintiff sued for review of the Department of Labor's denial of her claim for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, alleging that radiation exposure at the Pantex Plant caused her breast and skin cancers. The court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment. The decision was based on a dose reconstruction by NIOSH estimating a radiation exposure probability of causation at only 0.58%, far below the 50% threshold required for benefits under the Act. Applying the arbitrary and capricious standard of review to the administrative record, the court found the denial neither arbitrary nor capricious given the clear statutory prerequisite.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case is a bankruptcy appeal in which a judgment creditor objected to the debtor's Chapter 7 discharge. The debtor had made multiple transfers of funds to entities he controlled in the months before filing, and the bankruptcy court denied discharge under sections 727(a)(2)(A) and 727(a)(3) for fraudulent transfers and failure to keep adequate records. The district court affirmed, holding that equitable tolling applied to the one-year lookback period under section 727(a)(2)(A) because the debtor's prior bankruptcy filings had prevented the creditor from pursuing its claim. The court also upheld the findings of intent to hinder creditors and inadequate record-keeping as not clearly erroneous.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff James Avery Rush, IV, a second-year medical student with a disability that substantially limited his reading and learning abilities, who sued the National Board of Medical Examiners after it denied his request for double time on the timed USMLE Step I licensing exam under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court granted a preliminary injunction ordering the Board to provide the requested accommodation, allowing the exam to be completed over two days instead of one. The decision rested on findings that the plaintiff's impairment substantially limited major life activities of reading and processing information compared to peers, that prior accommodations had enabled his academic success including on the MCAT, and that without accommodation his test performance would reflect his disability rather than his medical knowledge. The court further concluded that the balance of harms and public interest favored the injunction to prevent discrimination in licensing exams.

civil rightshealthcare

The case involved landowners abutting an abandoned railroad corridor who sued after the City of Amarillo and Karen Corp. purchased the corridor from BNSF, with the City acquiring the eastern portion and Karen Corp. the western portion, alleging that Texas statutes entitled them to buy the abutting segments and that the transaction violated their due process and takings rights under the U.S. Constitution. The court analyzed Texas Local Government Code § 272.001, which governs sales of certain narrow strips of public land to abutting owners without standard notice and bidding but does not mandate conveyance to those owners. It concluded that the statute created no protected property interest for the plaintiffs in the western corridor, so there was no viable federal claim and federal jurisdiction was lacking, leading to dismissal of all claims without reaching the merits or exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law issues.

propertycivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Daniel Joseph Williams challenging his 1996 Texas conviction for aggravated sexual assault and resulting 40-year sentence. The petitioner alleged due process and Sixth Amendment violations from the trial court's denial of a jury view of his vehicle and from allowing testimony by a social worker about a privileged conversation. The U.S. District Court, adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overruled the petitioner's objections and denied the petition, finding that the claims lacked merit because the evidentiary rulings did not deny fundamental fairness and the social worker's testimony was limited and affirmed by the petitioner himself.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved challenges by students and parents to a Tulia Independent School District policy requiring random, suspicionless drug testing via urinalysis for all students in grades 7-12 who participated in any extracurricular activities, covering about 80% of the student body. The court ruled that the policy violated the Fourth Amendment. It found that Fifth Circuit precedent in Brooks v. East Chambers Consolidated Independent School District, which had struck down a nearly identical policy, remained binding because the facts in Tulia showed no significant drug problem, increase in disciplinary issues, or safety risks among athletes or other participants, unlike the crisis situation in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton that had upheld limited testing of student athletes.

civil rights

In Hays v. Monfort, Inc., workers at a beef processing plant sued their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking overtime pay for time spent showering after shifts in the inedible rendering area. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that such time was not compensable because it was excluded by custom or practice under a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(o). The court granted the motion, finding that the agreement and established practice at the plant allowed exclusion of personal showering time from measured working hours. Plaintiffs' claim that showering was integral due to potential health risks was rejected, as the statute permits exclusion even for otherwise compensable activities and the workers were not required to shower. The case was dismissed.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Rice v. Harken Exploration Co., landowners sued an oil and gas company operating on their Texas ranch, alleging that hydrocarbon and brine discharges from production equipment contaminated surface waters, groundwater, and land, damaged vegetation, and killed cattle, and seeking declaratory relief and remediation under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) as the basis for federal jurisdiction. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment only as to the OPA claim. The core reasoning was that the OPA, focused on marine oil pollution and discharges affecting navigable waters, does not create a cause of action on these facts involving inland land-based operations whose pollutants flow into tributaries ultimately reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty

Robert Amos, a bulldozer operator with kidney disease requiring hemodialysis and later a transplant, sued Wheelabrator Coal Services under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming the employer failed to accommodate his need for a fixed daytime shift instead of rotating shifts. After a jury verdict in Amos's favor, the court considered the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted the motion and entered judgment for the defendant, reasoning that the ADA does not require an employer to create a new position, violate a collective bargaining agreement's seniority provisions, or reassign less desirable shifts to other employees to accommodate the plaintiff.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Texas cattle companies suing Oprah Winfrey, her production company, and guest Howard Lyman over a 1996 episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show discussing Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or "Mad Cow Disease") and its potential risks in the US. The plaintiffs claimed the segment constituted false disparagement of perishable food products under Texas law, as well as business disparagement, defamation, and negligence. The court granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing all claims except common law business disparagement, on which the jury found for the defendants, resulting in the plaintiffs recovering nothing.

torts & liabilityfree speech

This case is an age discrimination suit under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act brought by an aircraft mechanic over age 40 who was terminated in a reduction in force, not promptly rehired, and later rehired on a permanent basis after being out of work for 40 weeks. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of the statutory cap on compensatory and punitive damages. The court granted the motion, holding that the $50,000 cap applies because the employer had fewer than 101 employees and could not be aggregated with its parent company's workforce. The core reasoning was that the two entities operated separately, with no evidence of interrelation of operations, centralized labor control, or involvement by the parent in the termination or rehiring decisions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved the United States seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after Defendant Greenstreet and another individual filed five fraudulent UCC-1 financing statements against three USDA employees in Texas county records, naming them as debtors despite no actual debts existing. The filings were made as retaliation following the defendant's default on an FmHA loan and foreclosure, as well as the other's criminal conviction related to FmHA property. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, declaring the financing statements void ab initio, ordering county clerks to expunge them from public records, and permanently enjoining Greenstreet from similar future filings without court approval. The decision rested on the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the statements' failure to meet UCC requirements for validity, and the lack of merit in the defendant's jurisdictional challenges and claims of prior adjudication by a purported Republic of Texas court.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Mildred M. Austin's challenge to the Social Security Administration's denial of a waiver for recovery of overpaid widow's insurance benefits. Austin had received benefits based on her first husband's record after filing an application in 1980 but was later found ineligible because she had remarried before age 60; this resulted in an overpayment of approximately $24,705 after adjustments. An administrative law judge determined she was not without fault due to her failure to read and verify the accuracy of her application or disclose her remarriage, and the agency sought repayment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report, overruled Austin's objections, and granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment, affirming that she was not entitled to a waiver because substantial evidence supported the finding of fault under the Social Security Act.

federal powerprocedure

In Woolridge v. Redman Homes, Inc., plaintiffs sued in Texas state court under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and related state laws, claiming that formaldehyde gas from a manufactured home caused severe health problems, leading to loss of the home, and alleging failures to warn, negligence in design and construction, breach of warranties, fraud, and unconscionable conduct. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act completely preempted the state claims. The district court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, ruling that the federal act preempts only differing state construction or safety standards, while the Texas laws either match federal standards or address remedies for fraud and unconscionable conduct without setting such standards. The court held that plaintiffs, as masters of their claims, could pursue only state remedies, so no federal jurisdiction existed and removal was improper.

procedurefederal power

This case concerned a union's request for a declaratory judgment that a union security clause in its collective bargaining agreement with a federal contractor at Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas was enforceable under federal law, even though Texas right-to-work laws prohibit such agreements requiring non-members to pay agency fees. Defendant Hadley, a non-union employee, moved for summary judgment arguing that the state laws applied and barred enforcement of the clause. The court granted the motion, holding that the federal enclave at the base did not exempt the employment relationship from Texas right-to-work laws in this context and that federal regulations and the NLRA did not preempt the state prohibition on union security agreements here.

labor & employmentfederal power

The case involved MDPhysicians & Associates, Inc., the administrator of a self-funded multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) known as the MDP Plan, seeking a declaratory judgment that Texas insurance regulators could not require the plan to obtain a certificate of authority as a state insurer because it was governed by ERISA. The defendants argued that the plan was not an ERISA-covered employee welfare benefit plan, allowing the state to apply its insurance laws. The court found that the MDP Plan did not qualify as an ERISA plan because the subscribing employers did not act as employers in relation to the plan, had no control over its operation, and the arrangement functioned like a private insurance program rather than a bona fide employer-sponsored benefit plan under ERISA's definition. As a result, ERISA preemption did not apply, the court lacked federal question jurisdiction, and the case was dismissed.

business & regulatoryhealthcarefederal power

This case involved a court-appointed receiver for an insolvent Texas insurance company suing its former officers and directors for negligence in approving and marketing a hospital indemnity policy that contributed to the company's financial collapse. The jury found the defendants liable on the negligence claims and awarded damages, but the defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and other relief, arguing the claim was time-barred. The court granted the motions in part, ruling that the two-year Texas statute of limitations barred the negligence action because the jury determined the receiver knew or should have known of the wrongful acts by August 14, 1984, yet the suit was filed in April 1988. The court rejected tolling based on adverse domination, noting that a temporary receiver was appointed in March 1986 and could have pursued the claim, and the one-year extension under the Insurance Code did not apply to extend the filing deadline in this manner.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability