The case concerned MBank New Braunfels' suit against the FDIC to recover $17.1 million in federal funds it had loaned to the insolvent MBank Dallas, which the FDIC had valued at only 80 percent of par when assessing the solvency of MCorp's banks in March 1989. MBank New Braunfels contended that the FDIC's valuation and related actions violated the National Bank Act and other statutes requiring equal treatment of creditors, as well as Fifth Amendment rights. The FDIC raised jurisdictional defenses including sovereign immunity and argued it had discretion in its determinations. After reviewing the motions for summary judgment, the court granted judgment in favor of MBank New Braunfels, finding the case appropriate for resolution on the pleadings and that the plaintiff's claims succeeded under the applicable banking laws.
The case centered on MCorp, a bank holding company, and its subsidiary MCorp Financial challenging actions by the FDIC and Comptroller of the Currency after several MBanks faced financial trouble in 1988; the agencies declined open-bank assistance, imposed a Standstill Agreement requiring continued funding of troubled banks, and monitored liquidity until declaring multiple MBanks insolvent in March 1989 amid bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs and intervenors filed suits alleging improper agency conduct to facilitate control and sale of the banks, while defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment and asserted counterclaims. The court granted summary judgment to MCorp and MCorp Financial on the claims after reviewing all motions, pleadings, exhibits, arguments, and authorities. The core reasoning was that the record supported judgment for the plaintiffs as a matter of law under the applicable pre-FIRREA standards governing the agencies' receivership and insolvency determinations.
This case involves a former temporary employee of the U.S. Postal Service who sued over an alleged on-the-job injury from 1989, citing various federal statutes including Title 5 provisions, the Rehabilitation Act, and others rather than Title VII. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment against the defendant based on a missed status report meeting, attributing the issue to a miscommunication for which the defendant's counsel was not responsible. Upon sua sponte reconsideration, the court vacated its prior order denying dismissal, concluding that the plaintiff had not exhausted required administrative remedies under the relevant statutes, which deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.
The case involved Picker International seeking a preliminary injunction against former employee Carl Blanton to enforce confidentiality and non-competition provisions in his employment agreement. Blanton had worked as a field service engineer maintaining MRI systems, received extensive proprietary training and materials, and signed agreements prohibiting disclosure or use of confidential information and restricting post-employment competition in servicing Picker equipment. The court granted the injunction for one year, enjoining Blanton from servicing the relevant equipment, disclosing or using Picker's confidential information, and retaining proprietary materials. The reasoning centered on Picker's likelihood of success on the merits under Texas law governing covenants not to compete, the risk of irreparable harm from loss of trade secrets and goodwill, the balance of equities favoring enforcement, and the public interest in upholding valid contracts without undue restraint on trade.
This case is a Title VII class action alleging disparate impact employment discrimination in the City of Dallas police hiring process. In Phase I, the court found that facially neutral criteria such as education, criminal history, driving record, and drug usage produced a statistically adverse impact on black applicants that was not justified by business necessity, establishing liability for the class of black applicants from 1973 to 1979; no such impact was found for female applicants. The opinion addresses Phase II remedies, including back pay, individual damages determinations, and injunctive relief against specific criteria like college credits, marijuana use, and traffic convictions. The court applies a framework under which the employer's burden to prove job-relatedness is lighter for high-skill, high-risk positions like police officer than for low-skill jobs, while noting the City's good-faith efforts and subsequent modifications to many criteria.
The case involved a dispute over the Hardemans' 1985 purchase of a limited partnership interest in Hall Dadeland Towers Associates, a Texas partnership formed to own and operate a Florida office building and garage, through a broker who sold the $108,000 unit via a subscription agreement, promissory note, and related documents. The Hardemans paid $20,000 before seeking recovery of their investment from the Hall entities, claiming violations of Florida securities laws. The court ruled that the Hardemans could recover from Hall Dadeland Partnership, Hall 85 Associates, and Craig Hall. Its core reasoning was that the limited partnership interests were securities that did not qualify for a Regulation D-style exemption from registration under Florida blue sky laws, because the offering involved improper general solicitation and advertising by persons acting on behalf of the issuer.