The case concerns a motion to hold Gaston A. Shumate in civil contempt for violating a 1997 bankruptcy court order requiring certain payments, an order that was adopted by the district court and affirmed on appeal. The district court withdrew the reference to the bankruptcy court for purposes of the contempt motion and found that Shumate had knowingly and deliberately violated the prior order. The court ordered Shumate to pay specified sums to BKS Properties, Inc., Bernadine Kay Shirley, the Bartholow family, the probate estate of Henry C. Seals, First American Title Insurance Company of Texas, and Continental Casualty Company to satisfy the original obligations plus additional costs and expenses. It further directed that Shumate be incarcerated until the payments are made, with incarceration suspended only if he refrains from initiating new proceedings against the listed parties, and barred him from filing additional pleadings in any court until the sanctions are paid.
In this criminal case, Lt. Col. Robert Clinton Morris was charged in the Northern District of Texas with conspiring to convert approximately $7 million in U.S. Army excess medical equipment located in Georgia, as part of a two-count indictment that also alleged a separate conspiracy involving different defendants and timelines. Morris moved to sever Count 2 from the indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8, arguing misjoinder, and to transfer the case under Rule 21(b) for convenience. The court granted both motions, finding that the two counts alleged distinct conspiracies with no overarching scheme or substantial overlap in facts or participants beyond one shared individual. The court further determined that transfer to the Middle District of Georgia was appropriate because the alleged acts occurred there, most witnesses resided there, and it would reduce expense and inconvenience for the parties.
The case concerned Defendant Timothy Coleman’s motion to suppress evidence, including a kilogram of cocaine and his confession, obtained after his arrest by Mesquite, Texas police officers. The officers stopped Coleman inside Dallas city limits for a seatbelt violation they had observed earlier in Mesquite, arrested him when he could not produce identification, and searched his car incident to arrest. The court initially granted the motion to suppress on the ground that the arrest was unlawful under Texas law because the officers lacked jurisdiction outside their municipality, but later vacated that order and denied the motion. Binding Fifth Circuit precedent required that the validity of the search and seizure be determined under federal law rather than state jurisdictional rules, so the evidence remained admissible in federal court.
This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which Martin Marietta Materials Southwest sought a declaration that its general liability insurer, St. Paul, had a duty to defend and indemnify it in an underlying state-court suit brought by Trinity Materials. Trinity alleged that Martin Marietta had diverted Big Sandy Creek without a permit, depriving Trinity of water needed for its downstream operations and causing over $150,000 in production losses. Applying Texas law’s eight-corners test, the court compared the underlying complaint’s allegations to the policy’s coverage for property damage caused by an “event” (defined as an accident). The court concluded that Martin Marietta’s intentional diversion of the creek made the resulting downstream injury foreseeable, so the incident was not an accidental “event” under the policy and created neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify. Because the absence of coverage resolved both issues, the court granted St. Paul’s motion for summary judgment and denied the insured’s cross-motion.
This case involved a dispute between two sports agents over fees from joint venture agreements concerning professional football players, including high-profile clients like Stephen Davis. After agreeing to arbitrate their claims, one party moved to vacate the arbitrator's award while the other sought confirmation. The court denied the motion to vacate, finding no basis for claims of fundamental unfairness, but also denied confirmation without prejudice and remanded the matter to the arbitrator. The remand was ordered to correct specific errors in the award's calculations and to clarify ambiguities regarding contingencies and payment timing, without allowing the arbitrator to revisit the merits of the decision.
This case was a class action lawsuit brought by homeless citizens of Dallas against the City, challenging ordinances that prohibit sleeping in public as violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, among other claims. After prior rulings, the only remaining claim was for unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and Texas Constitution. The court granted summary judgment to the City, holding that arrests made pursuant to the ordinances were supported by probable cause since individuals were observed sleeping in public, making them reasonable under the Fourth Amendment without need for further balancing of interests. Plaintiffs provided no evidence of arrests lacking probable cause, and arguments about officer discretion or vagueness did not apply to the Fourth Amendment analysis here.