In Altschuler v. Cohen, sophisticated high-tax-bracket investors sued the syndicators of JV-102, a real estate venture that purchased the Roane tract in Houston, alleging material misrepresentations and omissions regarding commissions, financing structure, and property details that led to their financial losses. The court entered judgment for the defendants after finding that the plaintiffs had not established scienter, materiality, actual reliance, or lack of due diligence. The opinion emphasized that the investors had accurately perceived the tract's strong value and appreciation potential, that any alleged omissions were not material to the investment's soundness, and that the losses resulted from the plaintiffs' decision to abandon the venture during a market downturn rather than from any fraud. The court noted that the key facts—location, price, and terms—were reasonable and that details of the seller-agent arrangement were immaterial from an investment standpoint.
This case involved plaintiffs LK Productions and performer Larry Kane suing the union AFTRA and related entities, alleging that the union's collective bargaining agreements and efforts to enforce payment of scale wages and pension contributions violated federal antitrust laws. The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the antitrust claims while allowing the separate claims under the National Labor Relations Act to proceed. The core reasoning was that the union's conduct occurred within an established collective bargaining relationship, did not involve a prohibited 'most favored nations' clause or attempts to exclude competitors based on wages, and was distinguishable from the non-collective-bargaining agreement condemned in Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers, as AFTRA already represented many performers including Kane and sought only standard terms.
In this coram nobis proceeding, Russell Lee Hayes challenged his 1957 federal conviction for preparing false income tax returns and making fraudulent claims against the United States, asserting that he had been mentally incompetent to stand trial. The court also addressed the government's claim that Hayes had abused the writ through repeated post-conviction filings. After reviewing the full factual record and Hayes's history of eight prior motions—all previously denied on the merits or procedural grounds—the court concluded that Hayes was competent at the time of trial. The court further held that the competency claim could have been raised in earlier proceedings and that Hayes's pattern of successive litigation constituted an abuse of the writ. Judgment was therefore entered for the United States.
The case concerned Emmit W. Padon, a Seventh Day Adventist employed as Maintenance Foreman at Richmond State School, a state institution for severely retarded residents requiring 24/7 supervision. Padon was demoted or discharged after refusing to perform routine Saturday work due to his Sabbatarian religious beliefs, though he had previously accommodated emergencies and the institution had initially arranged for his supervisor to cover Saturdays. The court held that the defendants violated the law by failing to make reasonable efforts to accommodate Padon's religious practices. The core reasoning was that the school could have adjusted operations without undue hardship, as evidenced by prior successful arrangements and the absence of good-faith attempts to explore alternatives like shift swaps, unlike in comparable cases where employers demonstrated such efforts.
This case was a Title VII employment discrimination suit brought by John Saucedo, a Mexican-American floor man employed by the small oilfield company Brothers Well Service, Inc., who was discharged after speaking Spanish on the job. The court ruled for the plaintiff and awarded back wages, interest, and attorneys' fees. The decision rested on findings that the purported company rule against speaking Spanish was not formally promulgated or consistently enforced, that the only notice given to Saucedo referenced a supervisor's intolerance for "Mesican" talk, and that the discharge resulted from racial animus rather than a legitimate neutral policy.
The case concerns claims for back pay, mileage reimbursement, and attorneys' fees by multiple former teachers against the Sweeny Independent School District following their wrongful termination, after remand from the Fifth Circuit for calculation of damages. The court reviews stipulations, interrogatories, depositions, and affidavits to make individualized findings on plaintiffs' lost earnings, offset by actual income earned elsewhere, while addressing complications such as deceased plaintiffs without identified beneficiaries and whether commuting costs qualify for reimbursement. It applies equitable principles to limit awards to expenses proximately caused by the terminations and rejects an adjusted-income theory that would reduce offsets for new jobs requiring more workdays. The court also determines a reasonable attorneys' fee award based on documented time spent, the complexity of the uphill litigation, and the reasonableness of counsel's estimates.