Patrick Errol Higginbotham

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.

federal powerprocedure

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

federal powerfamily law

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.

criminal lawcivil rights

The United States sought a permanent injunction to compel Mobil Corporation to allow IRS inspection of employee salary records and W-4 forms under 26 U.S.C. § 6001 during an audit, without issuing or enforcing an administrative summons under Sections 7602-7610. The court denied the IRS's motion for summary judgment and held that Section 6001 and its regulations do not authorize inspection of records without the summons procedures, as the statutory language addresses only record-keeping obligations rather than access rights. The core reasoning examined the text of § 6001, its relationship to the summons provisions and third-party recordkeeper rules in § 7609, and concluded that the IRS interpretation would create Fourth Amendment problems by permitting broad warrantless inspections of employer records.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

In this patent infringement case, Dresser Industries sued Ford Motor Company and a dealer for allegedly infringing two patents on sonic exhaust recirculation valves. Ford responded by challenging the patents' validity based on undisclosed prior art and misrepresentations during prosecution, then moved to compel Dresser to apply for reissue of the patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 251-256 and to dismiss the action. Dresser instead sought reexamination under the new 35 U.S.C. §§ 301-307 and requested a stay of the litigation. The court compared the two PTO procedures, observing that reissue allows a broader examination of patentability issues such as prior art, specifications, and compliance with statutes, while reexamination is limited primarily to specified patents and printed publications in an ex parte process.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns consolidated actions over a 1978 standby commitment agreement for $4 million in GNMA securities between LTV Federal Credit Union and UMIC Government Securities, Inc., under which LTV was obligated to purchase the securities at a set price and yield upon notice, in exchange for a commitment fee, with related margin requirements and a parallel agreement between UMIC and Banco de la Nación Argentina. LTV sought declaratory relief that the contract was unenforceable on grounds including lack of authority by its manager, absence of statutory power, violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Exchange Act of 1934 plus state blue sky laws, securities fraud under Rule 10b-5, and Tennessee gaming statutes, while UMIC sought damages for LTV's breach after market interest rates rose and LTV refused delivery. The court made extensive findings of fact on the contract terms, fee payments, margin calls, fluctuating FHA rates, LTV's breach notice, UMIC's settlement with Banco, and potential damages calculations based on available GNMA coupons. It concluded that the agreement was valid and enforceable under Tennessee law, LTV breached by refusing to perform, and UMIC was entitled to damages of $1,146,250 plus interest and fees, while dismissing the 10b-5 counterclaim.

business & regulatory

This case is a Title VII class action brought by black and female employees and applicants against Republic National Bank of Dallas, alleging discriminatory practices in hiring, initial placement, promotion, and compensation. After an earlier finding of phase-one liability, the court addressed the bank's motion for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's Burdine decision clarifying burdens of proof. The court explained that Burdine refines the McDonnell Douglas framework for individual disparate-treatment claims but does not alter the standards for pattern-or-practice class actions established in Teamsters and Franks, which allow statistical evidence to shift the burden to the employer. It concluded that the liability findings for nonexempt hiring, exempt positions, compensation, placement, and promotion remain governed by those class-action precedents rather than the individual-case sequence in Burdine.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a class action by male job applicants challenging Southwest Airlines' policy of hiring only women as flight attendants and ticket agents, along with height-weight requirements that disproportionately affected men, as violations of Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination. Southwest conceded its intentional sex-based hiring but defended it under the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception, arguing that female sex appeal was essential to its marketing image of providing "love" and feminine spirit to attract predominantly male business passengers. The court held that being female was not a BFOQ reasonably necessary to the airline's normal operations, as the core business function was passenger transportation rather than entertainment or sex appeal. It reasoned that customer preferences or profit motives could not justify sex discrimination unless they destroyed the essence of the business or created safety issues, applying a narrow interpretation of the BFOQ defense consistent with precedents like Diaz.

civil rightslabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved whether the Irving Independent School District was required to provide Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC) to five-year-old Amber Tatro, who has spina bifida and a neurogenic bladder preventing voluntary voiding, as part of her Individual Education Program under the Education of All Handicapped Children Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Following the Fifth Circuit's remand interpreting those statutes to obligate such services, the district court directed the school district to furnish CIC during school hours, dismissed claims for retrospective relief against state defendants on Eleventh Amendment grounds, and denied sanctions while awarding reduced attorneys' fees after finding some billing excessive. The court noted the district had consistently offered placement in its Early Childhood Development Classes and only disputed the provision of CIC pending legal resolution.

civil rightsfederal power

This case involved a suit by the Secretary of Labor against American Airlines under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that the airline was required to pay minimum wage to full-time students training as flight attendants and reservation sales agents at its learning center. The court found that the trainees were not employees covered by the Act. It reasoned that the five-week flight attendant program (and similar reservation training) occurred in an academic setting with no on-the-job component, provided no immediate benefit or work replacement to the airline, and was a prerequisite rather than part of employment, consistent with precedents like Walling v. Portland Terminal Co. The opinion also noted that American provided room and board but made no guarantee of post-training employment, with trainees explicitly acknowledging their non-employee status.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case was a consolidated Title VII class action brought by black female plaintiffs against Republic National Bank of Dallas alleging race and sex discrimination in hiring, compensation, initial placement, promotions, terminations, and other employment terms. After a five-week trial, the district court issued detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, first reevaluating and redefining the class and then examining the bank's personnel policies alongside extensive statistical data from both sides. The court applied legal standards for proving discrimination to regression models and other evidence on compensation and hiring, while addressing data limitations, job-relatedness of qualifications, and appropriate labor markets to assess whether the bank's practices treated protected groups differently from similarly situated employees or applicants.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the petitioner challenged his felony theft conviction and life sentence enhanced by two prior convictions, after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the initial sentence for insufficient evidence linking him to one prior conviction, allowed new evidence on remand, and reimposed the life sentence. The petitioner raised six grounds for relief, including vindictive reindictment, improper prosecutorial argument, insufficient evidence of guilt, denial of a jury at the punishment phase, double jeopardy violations from new evidence at resentencing, and cruel and unusual punishment. The court rejected the first four grounds, finding no constitutional violations under precedents like Bordenkircher v. Hayes, Jackson v. Virginia, and Hicks v. Oklahoma, and no arbitrary denial of state-created rights. On the fifth ground, the court analyzed whether presenting additional evidence after reversal for evidentiary insufficiency on the enhancement violated double jeopardy under Burks v. United States and Greene v. Massey, distinguishing it from mere trial error. The sixth ground was deemed moot or foreclosed by Rummel v. Estelle.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned claims of sex discrimination in promotions to managerial positions at Shop Rite Foods under Title VII, with female claimants seeking back pay for lost wages. A special master computed awards by determining weekly salary differentials between male managers and claimants, multiplying them by hypothetical promotion periods based on median male tenure, and applying adjustments for interest at 6% compounded weekly, limited bonuses, and tax effects, while starting the period from Title VII's effective date. To account for short male tenures in management, the master first used probability factors and ultimately adopted an aggregate 40% reduction method allocating awards among 11 major claimants plus separate awards for others. The court reviewed and accepted these calculations, resulting in total recommended awards of $208,148 including interest to July 1, 1980.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved the United States seeking a permanent injunction to compel Mobil Corporation to provide the IRS with magnetic tapes or alternative records containing aggregated employee payroll information, based on tax code sections 6001 and 6011 and related regulations. Mobil had offered existing W-2 and W-4 forms but resisted compiling annualized records it did not already maintain, and it sought discovery into the IRS investigation via subpoena. The court examined the scope of record-keeping requirements under §6001, concluding that it does not authorize requiring the generation of new records beyond those already kept, unlike the broader summons authority under §7602, and addressed the appropriateness of discovery in such actions.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Nelson Bunker Hunt, an American citizen, and BP Exploration Company (Libya) Ltd., an English company, over contractual obligations and payments related to an oil concession in Libya that was later nationalized by the Libyan government. Hunt filed suit in U.S. district court seeking a declaration that BP was indebted to him and that he owed BP nothing, while BP moved for summary judgment based on a prior English High Court judgment that had addressed the same underlying claims under English contract law. The court found that the English judgment was entitled to recognition as a matter of comity, which would bar most or all of Hunt's claims in the U.S. litigation. However, because the English judgment remained subject to appeal, the court declined to grant summary judgment and instead stayed the U.S. proceedings until the English appeals were exhausted.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a 1973 contract between E-Systems, an American company, and Iran's Ministry of War to modify and repair aircraft, secured by bank guarantees and letters of credit issued by Bank Melli Iran and backed by Bank of America. After disputes over payments and the 1979 Iranian revolution, E-Systems sued for breach and nonpayment, obtained a temporary restraining order against demands on the letters of credit, and later sought to attach a "blocked account" on its own books that was established under U.S. Iranian Assets Control Regulations when Bank Melli demanded payment. The court denied E-Systems' application for a writ of attachment against the blocked account, concluding that the regulatory licensing arrangement did not create a sufficient property interest in Bank Melli subject to levy, while deferring rulings on personal jurisdiction and other issues raised in the motions to dismiss.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a prisoner serving a life sentence for aggravated robbery enhanced by prior convictions, raising seven grounds for relief primarily challenging the indictment's sufficiency, alleged defects in charging the offense, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Six of the grounds had been exhausted in state court, but the seventh—alleging that the jury charge authorized conviction for a nonexistent offense—was not, creating a mixed petition. The respondent moved to dismiss under Galtieri v. Wainwright, which requires dismissal without prejudice of any petition containing unexhausted claims to promote judicial economy and discourage piecemeal litigation. The petitioner sought to voluntarily dismiss the unexhausted ground under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), but the court held that such a waiver is permissible only if made with prejudice to avoid undermining the Galtieri rule; otherwise, the entire petition must be dismissed without prejudice. The petitioner was ordered to clarify within 30 days whether the dismissal of ground seven would be with prejudice, in which case the remaining claims would proceed to merits review before the magistrate.

criminal lawprocedure