Rhonda Danos, a secretary to U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., sued the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit and its members after the Council publicly reprimanded the judge for misconduct and suspended his authority to employ staff, leading to her termination. The district court dismissed her claims that the Council's order was unconstitutional and ultra vires. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the claims became moot after Porteous's removal from office by impeachment and Senate conviction. The court also held that sovereign immunity barred the suit because the Council possessed at least a colorable statutory basis under 28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1) to restrict the judge's hiring authority as part of addressing misconduct.
This case was a patent infringement suit in which Atlas Powder Co. alleged that Du Pont infringed the Bluhm patent (U.S. Patent No. 3,447,978) by making and selling water-in-oil emulsion ANFO blasting agents used in mining and construction. Du Pont counterclaimed that the patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112 because it was anticipated by prior art, obvious to one skilled in the art, failed to disclose the best mode, and was overly broad, and also asserted fraud on the Patent Office. The court applied the statutory presumption of validity, examined prior art references such as the Clay, Gehrig, and Coxon disclosures that used chemical sensitizers or lacked the claimed occluded gas volume and emulsion consistency, and found substantial differences supporting non-obviousness of the Bluhm claims that rely on entrapped air for sensitization without high explosives or gelling agents.
This was a patent infringement suit in which plaintiffs alleged that defendant Gulton's LIDS bus-destination display system infringed U.S. Patent 3,750,138, a computer-activated electronic visual display using a special-purpose digital computer and flip-dot technology for vehicles. The court first addressed validity and held the patent invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The statutory presumption of validity was weakened because pertinent prior art had not been presented to the Patent Office; the claimed invention was found to be a predictable combination of known components and functions that produced no unexpected results, lacked commercial success, and did not solve a long-felt need. Because the patent was invalid, the court did not reach the infringement or enablement issues.
In Keys v. Wolfe, investors who purchased units in a 1973 pecan orchard development program sued the company, its officers, and related entities under federal securities laws (including Sections 10(b), 15, and 17(a)) and state fraud statutes, alleging material misrepresentations and omissions in the prospectus about irrigation systems, tree-growing costs, expertise, profit projections, and dependence on future offerings, plus further omissions in a 1979 memorandum encouraging participation in a water district. The court ruled on summary judgment motions, dismissing the federal claims tied to the 1979 memorandum on the ground that it did not constitute a purchase or sale of a security, while analyzing control-person liability under the securities acts and noting that certain state-law claims could remain if plaintiffs proved conspiracy or joint liability. The core reasoning applied the statutory purchase-or-sale requirement, interpreted control liability to effectuate regulatory purposes rather than literal text, and considered statute-of-limitations and pleading standards for the remaining claims.
This case is an appeal from the denial of Social Security survivor's benefits to a twelve-year-old claimant, Trisha Conlon, who sought benefits as the child of deceased wage earner Michael Conlon under the Social Security Act. The court granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment, holding that Trisha did not qualify as Michael's child under any of the three relevant provisions of the Act. The court reasoned that the Texas domestic relations court decree was not binding on the Administration for purposes of determining intestate inheritance rights under Vermont law, that no valid court decree establishing paternity existed prior to Michael's death, and that no common-law marriage between Michael and Trisha's mother was established by the evidence. The court further found that the Administration's determination was supported by substantial evidence.
The case concerned Stephen Crane's arrest on a misdemeanor capias for allegedly exhibiting obscene material, which was based on his name being listed without consent on corporate documents for an adult theater; the charges were later dismissed for lack of evidence. Crane sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the arrest resulted from Dallas County's practice of issuing such capias without any probable cause determination by a neutral magistrate, and a jury awarded him damages against the county and Criminal District Attorney Henry Wade. The court addressed whether the county could be liable under Monell for an unconstitutional custom or policy, analyzing the constitutional structure of Texas counties as subdivisions of the state with limited local autonomy and the Criminal District Attorney's role as primarily a state officer responsible for criminal prosecutions rather than county administration or providing unsolicited legal advice on warrant procedures.