In Littlefield v. Forney Independent School District, students and their parents sued the school district and its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging a mandatory school uniform policy adopted in 1999 as violating their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, along with other constitutional protections, based on philosophical and religious objections. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding the policy lawful. The court reasoned that the policy was authorized by Texas Education Code § 11.162, included an opt-out process for bona fide objections with administrative review, and did not implicate protected speech because student clothing under the policy lacked a communicative element; related free exercise claims were not subject to heightened scrutiny and did not establish a constitutional violation.
In this case, credit card holders sued First USA Bank over its imposition of late fees and other assessments on their accounts, seeking to proceed individually and as a class action. The bank moved to compel arbitration based on a provision in the Cardmember Agreements or subsequent amendments, arguing that disputes must be resolved outside of court. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice, and ruled on related motions to strike evidence. It reasoned that the plaintiffs had agreed to the arbitration terms either in their original agreements or through reasonable notice of amendments, that the provision was enforceable and not unconscionable under applicable law, and that the Federal Arbitration Act applied to require arbitration of the claims. The court also struck certain exhibits as irrelevant to the arbitration question but allowed others.
The case involved the United States seeking civil forfeiture of three commercial properties in Duncanville, Texas, purchased by claimant Haisam Muhidin Sbini using funds from the Sterling Food Store. Sbini and employees had pleaded guilty to felony illegal redemption of food stamps after a scheme in which Lonestar EBT cards were used to record fake food purchases and pay recipients cash at a discount, generating over $369,000 in fraudulent federal deposits between 1995 and 1996. The government moved for summary judgment under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and (C) as property involved in or derived from violations of §§ 1957 and 1029. The court granted the motion, holding that undisputed evidence traced at least $109,919 of the purchase money directly to the fraud, that the properties were therefore forfeitable, and that the forfeiture did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause.
This case involved a dispute between The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes over the interpretation of seniority and promotion rules in their 1982 collective bargaining agreement, specifically whether employees could accrue seniority in new positions without serving in them. The union struck in response to the company's actions regarding one employee's seniority, leading the company to seek an injunction under the Railway Labor Act. The court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that the dispute was a 'minor' one under the RLA because it concerned interpretation of the existing agreement rather than a change to it, and thus enjoined the strike, while denying requests for broader future injunctions.
The case involved Absolute Resource Corporation suing Banc One Leasing Corporation, Robert Keaveny, and related parties after a proposed loan to develop Missouri mining property failed to close. Absolute claimed that a July 1994 proposal letter created a binding contract for a $2.5 million loan and that Keaveny made fraudulent misrepresentations about loan approval and third-party financing through the Hurst Trust. The district court granted summary judgment to Banc One and Keaveny on the contract and fraud claims. It reasoned that the letter was only a non-binding proposal subject to senior approval and due diligence, the deposit was refundable, and the alleged representations were non-actionable predictions or opinions rather than false statements of existing fact.
This case was an employment dispute in which plaintiff James Carl Wakefield, an African American employee at State Farm, alleged race discrimination under federal and Texas civil rights statutes, along with civil conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on actions such as a negative recommendation for a promotion, delayed expense reports, and altered performance evaluations allegedly influenced by his supervisors. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims lacked evidence of adverse employment decisions motivated by race, that a corporation cannot conspire with its own agents, and that the conduct was not extreme or outrageous enough to support an emotional distress claim. The court granted the motion in full and dismissed all claims with prejudice, applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to find no prima facie case or pretext for discrimination, rejecting the conspiracy claims under established precedent, and concluding that the alleged actions amounted only to ordinary employment disputes insufficient for an intentional infliction claim.