District Court, W.D. Texas — appointed by John F. Kennedy
United States v. Juarez
District Court, W.D. Texas · 1982-06-14
The case involves a defendant charged with federal crimes including rape and assault within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction who was twice found incompetent to stand trial due to mild to moderate mental retardation and likely dangerous if released. Federal authorities committed him to the Attorney General's custody under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246 and 4247, but the Medical Center repeatedly returned him, claiming responsibility lay with the State of Texas, whose facilities were unavailable despite efforts to secure placement. The court held that the Attorney General must provide adequate facilities for the defendant's custody and care at a federal institution or under contract, as the statutory conditions for commitment remain unmet and exclusive federal jurisdiction applies, until the defendant becomes competent, is no longer dangerous, or suitable state arrangements are made.
criminal lawfederal powerprocedure
United States v. Thomas
District Court, W.D. Texas · 1981-06-12 · cited 5×
This case involved the United States seeking to recover alleged Medicare overpayments made to Smithville Hospital, Inc., a provider that participated in the Medicare program from 1967 to 1972. The government claimed overpayments totaling $62,904, which were reduced after a set-off, and sued both the hospital and its sole owner, Dr. James W. Thomas, after the hospital was dissolved. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact, and held Dr. Thomas personally liable for the remaining debt of $50,904 because he controlled the corporation and its assets were distributed without satisfying the Medicare obligation. The reasoning centered on the Medicare statute allowing recoupment of overpayments and the need to prevent circumvention of the statute by disregarding the corporate entity.
healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure
Ramon v. Califano
District Court, W.D. Texas · 1980-07-31 · cited 16×
The case involved claims for Social Security survivor benefits by Oralia Avila Ramon, her three minor children, and Roger Ramon, Jr., following the death of wage earner Robert R. Ramon. The court affirmed the Secretary's denial of benefits to Oralia and her children, finding substantial evidence that no common-law marriage existed under Texas law. For Roger Ramon, Jr., an illegitimate child whose paternity was admitted, the court reversed the denial and awarded benefits, holding that the pre-1977 version of Texas Probate Code §42—which allowed an illegitimate child to inherit from his father only if the parents married—was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted in Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977), because it imposed an absolute requirement of parental marriage that the Supreme Court had rejected. The court noted that Texas courts would apply Trimble to invalidate the statute, allowing the child to inherit as if legitimate and thus qualify for benefits under 42 U.S.C. §416(h)(2)(A).
family lawcivil rights
United States v. Powell
District Court, W.D. Texas · 1980-07-11 · cited 5×
The case involved a dispute over whether cash deposited by a defendant as an appearance bond could be applied directly by the court to pay a criminal fine imposed on the defendant after conviction. The government moved to have the bail funds used for the fine, while the defendant sought their return after appearing as required. The court denied the government's motion and granted the defendant's application for return of the funds. It reasoned that bail constitutes a contractual agreement to secure the defendant's presence, which is fulfilled upon appearance under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(f), and that the government as creditor must instead pursue collection through standard civil execution procedures rather than direct application of the bail money, following the precedent in United States v. Jones.
criminal lawprocedure
Dotson v. Fluor Corp.
District Court, W.D. Texas · 1980-06-13 · cited 6×
In this diversity case, a Texas resident sued Fluor Corporation and its subsidiaries for breach of an employment contract for work in Saudi Arabia and for misrepresentations made during hiring. After the plaintiff added Fluor Arabia, Ltd., a Saudi Arabian company, as a defendant, that company moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court overruled the motion, holding that the company's recruitment of Texas residents for employment, conducted through an intermediary agent in Texas, constituted "doing business" under the Texas long-arm statute as amended in 1979. The court reasoned that the statute's broadened definition applied retroactively because it was procedural and remedial, and that the contacts satisfied due process requirements since the claim arose directly from the recruitment activity. Fluor Arabia was ordered to answer the complaint within ten days.
procedurelabor & employment
Herndon v. Herndon
District Court, W.D. Texas · 1980-06-09 · cited 6×
The case involved rival claims to the proceeds of a life insurance policy on a deceased individual, with the insurer removing the state-court action to federal court and filing an interpleader counterclaim and cross-action; after an initial settlement among claimants, the bank was joined as a third-party defendant asserting a creditor claim against the estate. The bank moved to dismiss, arguing that 12 U.S.C. § 94 mandates venue in the district where a national bank is established. The court denied the motion, holding that the venue statute does not create a right assertable by a third-party defendant because Rule 14 impleader proceeds under ancillary jurisdiction and third-party defendants may not raise venue objections.
procedure