Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
District Court, E.D. Texas — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Kurth v. Gonzales
District Court, E.D. Texas · 2007-01-03 · cited 5×
The case involves a former employee of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons who sued under the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discriminatory discharge, harassment creating a hostile work environment, and retaliation based on his claimed disability from job-related severe emotional stress and depression. The court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment on these claims, focusing on whether the plaintiff could raise a genuine issue of material fact that he was disabled under the Act's standards, which align with those of the ADA, and whether the employer had offered reasonable accommodations that were refused. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and summary judgment principles under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court examined whether the plaintiff's impairments substantially limited major life activities such as sleeping, concentrating, or working, while noting differing views among circuit courts on those activities and the requirement that disability be the sole cause of the adverse action.
civil rightslabor & employment
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Perry Bros.
District Court, E.D. Texas · 1994-06-03 · cited 7×
The case concerned a dispute over NCNB's (predecessor to NationsBank) refusal to renew Perry Brothers' line of credit after acquiring assets from a failed bank, with the FDIC as a party due to its role in the transaction. The court made findings that an oral contract existed for renewal absent material adverse changes, that NCNB fraudulently misrepresented its intent to renew while secretly planning to downgrade the loan for FDIC compensation, and that the bank acted in bad faith, used coercive tactics creating duress, and improperly classified the credit. It rejected the bank's post-judgment defenses such as ratification, waiver, unclean hands, and failure to mitigate as unproved. The opinion also addressed the applicability of 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) and the D’Oench, Duhme doctrine to any agreements affecting FDIC interests.
business & regulatorytorts & liability
United States v. Ishmael
District Court, E.D. Texas · 1994-02-11 · cited 11×
This case involved defendants Rohn and Debra Ishmael who were suspected of operating an underground marijuana growing facility on their rural property. Law enforcement used thermal imaging devices from helicopters and on the ground to detect heat signatures from a metal building without obtaining a warrant, then used that information along with other observations to secure a search warrant that uncovered the marijuana operation. The court granted the defendants' motions to suppress the evidence, ruling that the warrantless use of thermal imaging violated the Fourth Amendment because such technology is more intrusive than permissible warrantless searches like dog sniffs and could not distinguish between legal and illegal activities. Without the thermal imaging data, the remaining evidence of construction, increased electricity use, and the defendant's criminal history was insufficient to establish probable cause under the totality of the circumstances.
criminal lawcivil rights
Sierra Club v. Espy
District Court, E.D. Texas · 1993-05-12 · cited 16×
This case involves environmental plaintiffs challenging the U.S. Forest Service's plans for even-aged timber management, including clear-cutting and seed-tree cuts, in Texas national forests through multiple upcoming timber sales. Plaintiffs argued that the agency failed to comply with constraints on even-aged methods under the National Forest Management Act and procedural requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, after their administrative appeal of the 1987 land management plan became moot. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction halting the even-aged management agenda pending final resolution of their claims, rejecting the magistrate judge's recommendation that exhaustion barriers fully barred review of the environmental assessments tied to the plan. The core reasoning centered on the plaintiffs' inability to exhaust remedies through no fault of their own, the need to evaluate statutory limits on management choices, and evidence that even-aged methods were not adequately justified over alternatives like selection management.
environmentprocedure
Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Texas · 1990-11-12 · cited 34×
This case involved thousands of asbestos-related personal injury and wrongful death claims filed in the Eastern District of Texas against manufacturers such as Raymark Industries, Inc. The court reviewed the history of protracted asbestos litigation, including failed efforts at market-share allocation, issue preclusion, ADR, and individual trials under the Jenkins procedure, which had driven up transaction costs and led to multiple defendant bankruptcies. It decided to employ statistical sampling of a representative group of plaintiffs, using exposure thresholds like asbestosis and goodness-of-fit testing, to resolve common issues of liability, causation, and damages for the broader class. The core reasoning was that conventional case-by-case adjudication could not feasibly handle the docket volume without astronomical costs and denied access to justice, while scientific evidence had already established the inherent dangers of asbestos.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Texas · 1990-06-18 · cited 12×
This case involved claims by 2,336 plaintiffs alleging injuries from exposure to defendants' asbestos-containing products at Texas worksites, which proceeded to trial as a class action on liability and punitive damages issues, with full trials for ten class representatives. After an eight-week trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs on liability, awarded about $3.5 million in compensatory damages to nine representatives, determined the products were defective, and assessed punitive damage multipliers ranging from $1.50 to $3.00 per dollar of actual damages. The court ruled that jury findings on the timing of defendants' knowledge of risks to household members and certain other groups (Interrogatories 2, 3, and 4) were immaterial surplusage because the duty to warn attached as early as 1935 based on known risks to insulators, and it resolved related post-trial issues including product identification evidence, the effect of prior settlements, contributory negligence, and prejudgment interest calculations. The court upheld the punitive damages verdict as supported by the evidence and consistent with Texas law but reserved for later decision whether to make equitable reductions to the multipliers or account for settlements.
torts & liabilityprocedure