Jack Roberts

This case involves a dispute between InterFirst Bank Abilene and the FDIC, as receiver for the insolvent Ranchlander National Bank, over InterFirst's setoff of Ranchlander's correspondent account against four loan participations it had purchased from Ranchlander. The participations involved loans tainted by fraud and gross negligence by Ranchlander's officers. The court denied the FDIC's motion for partial summary judgment and entered judgment for InterFirst, declaring the setoff valid, finding no liability to the FDIC, and ordering the FDIC to pay InterFirst its shares of proceeds collected on two of the loans. The reasoning was that the fraud made InterFirst's claims provable in the receivership, allowing the setoff; the FDIC held the collected proceeds as agent rather than as receivership assets; and federal law on ratable distribution among creditors barred recovery of interest or attorney's fees.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in a Chapter 11 proceeding where Country Junction, Inc. and Country Legend, Inc. sought to recover $415,291 in preferential payments made to Levi Strauss & Co. under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code shortly before their December 1981 filings. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment after reviewing Levi's challenges to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1471, the striking of its jury demand, the use of consolidated financial data without substantive consolidation, and multiple factual findings on issues such as insolvency, alter ego status, creditor claims, and the validity of notes and guaranties. Applying the clearly erroneous standard to factual determinations and plenary review to legal conclusions, the court found sufficient evidence supporting the bankruptcy court's decision and concluded that certain arguments were moot, resulting in affirmance of the preference recovery award.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This Miller Act case involved a subcontractor's suit against a prime contractor and its sureties for allegedly unpaid costs related to extra work and delays on a federal construction project at Air Force bases, along with the prime contractor's counterclaim for expenses to complete and correct the subcontractor's deficient work. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendant prime contractor, awarding it a net recovery of $109,106 after offsetting amounts owed. The core reasoning was that the subcontract's purchase orders expressly required written change orders and claims for price adjustments within 20 days, incorporated the prime contract specifications, and barred recovery for oral understandings or late-noticed changes; the subcontractor failed to follow these procedures, while the prime contractor proved its counterclaim for correction costs under federal law.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

Plaintiff Jayson Wilkenfield, a former doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, sued the university's Board of Regents and a faculty member under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his removal from the program violated his constitutional right to due process. The court found that the psychology department's area committee had authority under university regulations to impose and enforce academic requirements, that Wilkenfield received advance notice of deficiencies and multiple opportunities to remediate them, and that the decision underwent several layers of internal review including by an executive committee, an independent faculty panel, the graduate dean, and the university president. The court concluded that these procedures far exceeded the minimal protections required by the Fourteenth Amendment, that no evidence supported claims of bad faith or arbitrariness, and that the university acted within its delegated authority. Judgment was entered for the defendants.

civil rightsprocedure

Thomas v. Schweiker involved a challenge to the denial of disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, where claimant Norvella Thomas argued that inadequate notice of her right to representation and an unfair administrative hearing prejudiced her case. The court denied the Secretary's motion for summary judgment and granted Thomas's motion for remand, finding that the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge failed to meet the standards of a full and fair hearing. The core reasoning centered on deficient notice that omitted information about free legal services, equivocal statements from Thomas that did not constitute a valid waiver of counsel, the ALJ's failure to allow rebuttal of key medical evidence or develop the record regarding hospital records and supporting physician opinions, and the resulting prejudice from lack of representation. The decision emphasized the claimant's right to be informed of free counsel options and the ALJ's duty to probe for relevant information in an unrepresented claimant's proceeding.

procedurefederal powerhealthcare

Eleanor Van Cleave Brown, a former employee of the Texas Legislative Board (a subsidiary of the United Transportation Union), sued the Board and UTU alleging violations of the Landrum-Griffin Act after being fired in retaliation for reporting her supervisor's suspected misappropriation of funds; she also asserted state claims for breach of contract and fraud. The court held there was no diversity jurisdiction because Brown, the Board, and the UTU were all Texas citizens. Although federal question jurisdiction existed, Brown did not qualify as a union "member" under the Act, as she had never applied for membership, paid dues, or satisfied the union's constitutional requirements such as signing an oath, so her federal claim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and granted the motion to dismiss.

labor & employment

In Ferris v. University of Texas at Austin, students who use wheelchairs sued the university seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to require wheelchair accessibility on its shuttle buses, asserting claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and breach of contract based on statements in the university catalog. The court denied all relief, holding that the shuttle bus system—funded entirely by student services fees—is not a program receiving federal financial assistance within the meaning of Section 504, that the university is not "program specific" under the Act, that there was no equal protection violation, and that the catalog created no contractual duty to provide accessible service to individual students. The ruling turned on the absence of federal funding for the buses and the lack of any specific guarantee of individual access in the university's materials.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involved administrators of the Howard Hughes estate filing a federal interpleader action to resolve conflicting claims by Texas and California taxing authorities over death taxes based on the decedent's domicile. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the federal interpleader statute because the claimants were not of diverse citizenship. The court reasoned that the United States and state officials did not qualify as diverse citizens under the statute, and that other named parties were not adverse claimants but rather aligned with the plaintiffs. Additional claims under federal question jurisdiction and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were also dismissed for failing to state a claim.

taxesprocedurefederal power

This case involved a challenge by an unmarried woman and her illegitimate son to the denial of Mother’s Insurance Benefits under section 202(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 402(g), because she had never married the deceased wage earner whose account was at issue. The son was already receiving Child’s Insurance Benefits, but the mother did not qualify under the statute’s requirements that a recipient be a widow or surviving divorced mother. The court determined that the statutory provision was unconstitutional because it discriminated against the child solely on the basis of illegitimacy. Its reasoning centered on the conclusion that the mother’s benefits were intended to benefit the child by allowing parental care at home, so withholding them from unmarried mothers effectively penalized illegitimate children without a valid justification.

civil rightsfamily lawfederal power

The case involved the United States seeking to enjoin the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy from enforcing Rule 14, which prohibited accountants from submitting competitive bids for professional services, on the grounds that it violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court granted summary judgment to the United States and denied the Board's motion, issuing an injunction against the rule's continuation or similar practices. The core reasoning was that Rule 14 constituted a per se violation of the Sherman Act by directly suppressing price competition, as established in precedents like National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, and that the Board was not immune under the Parker doctrine because the anticompetitive conduct was not mandated by state policy or sovereign action.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the national motto "In God We Trust" and its use on U.S. coins and currency under the First Amendment's establishment, free exercise, and free speech clauses. The plaintiffs argued that the relevant statutes violated these protections, including by criminalizing defacement of the motto. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the motto serves a secular ceremonial purpose and does not establish religion or infringe on rights, following precedent from the Ninth Circuit in Aronow v. United States and statements in Supreme Court cases like School District of Abington Township v. Schempp and Wooley v. Maynard.

religious libertyfree speech

This case involved a federal lawsuit by the owner of a Texas movie theater and bookstore seeking declaratory relief that Texas Penal Code § 43.25, which criminalizes the sale or possession for sale of materials depicting persons under 17 engaging in sexual conduct, is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face. The suit arose after the theater's manager was indicted under the statute for selling a motion picture, though no charges were pending against the owner himself. The court granted the owner's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the statute violates the First Amendment. The core reasoning was that the law prohibits distribution of non-obscene materials without any requirement that the content appeal to prurient interest, be patently offensive, or lack serious value, thereby sweeping too broadly and chilling protected speech.

free speechcriminal law

The case involved defendants Cofer and Brennan, who were charged with conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute under federal drug laws. They moved to suppress evidence obtained after officers installed an electronic tracking beeper on an airplane under a warrant and conducted related stops and searches on October 7, 1977, including of the plane, a pickup truck, and Cofer's van. The court granted the suppression motions except for items from Cofer's van, ruling that the warrant was defective for lacking particularity on the duration, object, and places of the search, which made the beeper installation an unlawful search without a valid warrant. Evidence from the October 7 events was therefore suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree under Wong Sun, though the van evidence was admissible because the taint had attenuated and probable cause existed for the vehicle search.

criminal lawprocedure

In Smith v. Chapman, the plaintiff sued the defendant car dealer alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act and the Texas Consumer Credit Code in connection with a 1974 retail installment contract for the purchase of a used Mercury automobile. The contract disclosed the cash price and official fees in a manner that mischaracterized the sales tax and placed required disclosures on the reverse side of the single-page document rather than on the front near the signature line. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's, adopting the Special Master's recommendation after determining that the transaction qualified as consumer credit rather than exempt business credit, that the defendant had admitted key facts establishing the consumer nature of the deal, and that multiple disclosure violations had occurred. The court awarded the plaintiff the statutory maximum of $995 in damages plus $3,500 in attorney's fees.

business & regulatory

The case involved the State of Texas challenging the Community Services Administration's approval of a $1.5 million grant to the Zavala County Economic Development Corporation under the Community Services Act without first requiring review by state and local clearinghouses as mandated by OMB Circular A-95 and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. The court found that no exemption from A-95 procedures applied, because the grant application was submitted before the effective date of 1976 regulatory amendments and prior planning grants had not undergone review. It granted declaratory relief stating that the federal defendants had failed to comply with the required procedures, rendering the grant approval improper, and issued a 60-day injunction barring further expenditure of funds to permit the mandated state and local review and comment. The decision rested on the conclusion that the public interest in enforcing intergovernmental coordination under the Act outweighed any resulting inconvenience to the grantee.

federal powerprocedure

This case concerned a challenge by the Texas Medical Association to HEW regulations that divided Texas into nine PSRO areas rather than adopting the plaintiffs' proposed single statewide PSRO, with the court tasked to determine if the regulations should be set aside under the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious or not-in-accordance-with-law standards. Plaintiffs contended that the agency's area designation was influenced in part by improper post-enactment pressures from congressional figures such as Senator Bennett and staff member Jay Constantine. The court applied judicial review principles from Overton Park v. Volpe, requiring a thorough examination of whether the agency considered relevant statutory factors, engaged in reasoned decision-making, or allowed extraneous political influences to affect its calculus. It held that agency action would be invalid if based in whole or in part on such congressional pressures, even if the Secretary also considered the merits, and noted the absence of a formal administrative record necessitating testimony from decision-makers.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

This case involved a dispute between the Texas Department of Public Welfare and the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare over the denial of approximately $92.7 million in federal matching funds for social services provided to welfare recipients during the first three quarters of fiscal year 1972. Texas had sought reimbursement for services purchased from other state agencies under retroactive agreements, but HEW rejected the claim for reasons including lack of timely eligibility determinations and documentation, without providing prior notice or a hearing. The court held that federal statutes (42 U.S.C. §§ 304, 604, 1204, and 1354) require the Secretary to give reasonable notice and an opportunity for a compliance hearing before withholding such funds upon a finding of substantial noncompliance with state plan requirements. It therefore issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Secretary to provide that process, while denying further relief such as an order to pay the funds in advance of the hearing, because the services had already been rendered years earlier and an adequate alternative remedy existed through the mandated hearing and subsequent judicial review.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

This case involved a class action lawsuit by a gas customer against Southern Union Gas Company, a utility franchised by the City of Austin, claiming that the company's policy of terminating service for disputed bills without a fair hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff disputed the accuracy of her gas bills due to a suspected leak and sought an administrative hearing before termination. The court determined that continued utility service constitutes a protected property interest, requiring minimum due process protections such as written notice, an opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision-maker, and the right to present evidence when a customer contests the grounds for termination. Accordingly, the court declared the termination policies unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the company from terminating service to disputing customers without implementing the required procedures.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a patent infringement claim by High Voltage Engineering Corp. against Potentials, Inc., alleging that the defendant's servicing of inclined-field acceleration tubes—by disassembling them, resurfacing the parts, and reassembling them—constituted an unauthorized making of the patented product under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The court held that these activities were permissible repair rather than impermissible reconstruction, so no infringement occurred and all relief was denied. The core reasoning drew on Supreme Court precedents such as Wilson v. Simpson and Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Co., which allow replacement or restoration of worn parts in a device intended for prolonged use, noting that the tubes' components were merely coated or scarred rather than spent and that the patented configuration remained unchanged.

business & regulatory

In Youngblood v. United States, taxpayers sued to compel the government to allow amendment of their 1963 tax return so they could report full capital gains from land sales instead of using the installment method, aiming to offset those gains against a large farming business loss. The court denied the request and entered judgment for the government. The court reasoned that a taxpayer's election of the installment method is binding once made through an overt act like filing the return, even if filed late and accepted without penalty by the government; that the tax attorney's actions bound the plaintiffs absent fraud; and that equitable factors from prior cases allowing amendments did not apply here given the four-year delay and lack of radical legal changes.

taxesprocedure