Finis E. Cowan

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.

business & regulatoryproperty

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

religious libertycivil rightslabor & employment

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved defendants convicted of conspiring to import marijuana into the United States, conspiring to possess it with intent to distribute, and carrying firearms during felony offenses, who moved to suppress evidence from the Coast Guard's seizure of their vessel, the TEXAS STAR, on the ground that the seizure occurred within Mexican territorial or contiguous waters. The court overruled the motion to suppress in all respects. It held that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the search, seizure, and arrest under the Fourth Amendment because they had no reasonable expectation of privacy or possessory interest in Mexican waters and thus were not victims of an invasion of their own privacy rights. The court relied on precedents such as Brown v. United States, Alderman v. United States, and several Fifth Circuit decisions, concluding that the precise location of the vessel was immaterial to the standing analysis.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between the Houston Metropolitan Council of the NAACP and the national NAACP organization regarding the reorganization of local branches in Houston and the termination of Rev. C. Anderson Davis from his position as Executive Secretary. Plaintiffs sought judicial intervention into the NAACP's internal affairs and claimed an enforceable contract right on behalf of Rev. Davis. The court determined that it lacked authority to intervene in the internal management of the voluntary association and that Rev. Davis had not established any contractual right enforceable against the NAACP. Applying Texas law as set forth in relevant precedents on voluntary associations, the court found that the undisputed facts showed only an internal organizational dispute without grounds for judicial relief. The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal tax investigation of defendant Andrew Toussaint, an IRS revenue agent who claimed a large theft loss on his 1974 tax return based on the alleged theft of a Picasso painting. After an initial interview on February 5, 1976, revealed indications of potential fraud, the assigned revenue agent continued investigating for months without promptly suspending and referring the matter to the Intelligence Division as required by the IRS Audit Technique Handbook. The court granted the motion in part, suppressing statements made by Toussaint in later interviews. The core reasoning was that federal agencies must follow their own published procedural rules under the Accardi doctrine, and the only effective remedy for the violation here was exclusion of the post-February 5 evidence obtained in breach of those rules.

criminal lawtaxesprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs who were investors in a limited partnership formed by defendant J. Edward Scott to purchase a 45-acre tract of land in Texas through a private securities offering. The plaintiffs alleged that Scott made material misrepresentations or omissions in the offering documents regarding the financing, risks, and ownership structure of the venture, leading to the premature termination of the partnership's interest in the property. After the plaintiffs presented their evidence at trial, the court granted the defendant's motion for an instructed verdict. The court reasoned that the offering memorandum and related documents fully disclosed the material terms, including the high-leverage financing and Scott's ownership stake, that the plaintiffs were sophisticated investors who acknowledged their understanding of the risks, and that there was no evidence the alleged omissions caused the investment's failure. The court entered judgment for the defendant.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Doe v. Marshall, a handicapped high school student sought to participate in interscholastic football at the school in the district where his managing conservators resided, but was barred by University Interscholastic League residency rules requiring students to compete for the district of their parents' residence. The court granted a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from barring the plaintiff from competition under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 29 U.S.C. § 794. The core reasoning was that the UIL rule, as applied, arbitrarily excluded the student from an activity important to his emotional stability and education without providing reasonable individual accommodations required by federal law for handicapped students in federally funded programs, and the transfer was for therapeutic reasons without recruiting concerns. The court found a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to the plaintiff if relief were denied, and no significant harm to the defendants from granting relief.

civil rights

The case concerned Greg Kite, a high school basketball player, and his parents' challenge to a University Interscholastic League rule barring students from attending special athletic training camps in football or basketball, which would render the student ineligible for league contests for one year. The court granted a preliminary injunction restraining enforcement of the rule against Kite, allowing him to attend the camp without losing eligibility. Jurisdiction arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due to state action by the UIL, and the decision rested on the constitutional protection of parental rights to direct a child's development and education, drawing from precedents such as Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyer v. Nebraska, which recognize family autonomy in such matters over state interference. The court found the rule unique among states and unnecessarily impinged on these fundamental rights in Kite's circumstances.

civil rightsfamily law

The case involves a student with minimal brain damage, a learning disability, and emotional disturbance whose family sued the Friendswood Independent School District after the district allegedly failed to provide appropriate special education services upon his transition to high school, leading to behavioral issues and a suicide attempt. The court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the district to continue funding the student's placement at a private facility, establish impartial due process hearing procedures compliant with federal law, and ensure review processes are available. The core reasoning was that the district had not furnished a free appropriate public education as required by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, had deliberately evaded its responsibilities, and that this contributed to the student's harm, necessitating interim relief pending full administrative due process.

civil rightsfederal power

The case concerned royalty payments owed to non-participating royalty owners on natural gas produced from a Texas well, where one working-interest owner's share was dedicated to interstate commerce and sold at lower federally regulated prices while other owners sold their shares in the higher-priced intrastate market. Plaintiffs argued that market value for royalty purposes should be determined using comparable intrastate sales, but the court held that only interstate sales are comparable for gas irrevocably committed to interstate commerce. Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent in Weymouth v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co., the court reasoned that the regulated nature of interstate sales, including FPC/FERC oversight and long-term dedication requirements, makes intrastate prices irrelevant to valuing the interstate portion. The court therefore concluded that royalties on the interstate share must be calculated using interstate market values and entered judgment for the defendants on the main claim.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

This long-running case, filed in 1959, concerns efforts to desegregate the Galveston Independent School District elementary schools, which had remained partially segregated despite earlier court orders and voluntary integration at higher grade levels. The district reactivated the litigation in 1975 amid disputes over federal funding and proposed using bond-funded new construction, including closing three racially identifiable schools and opening the L.A. Morgan Elementary as a magnet school, to eliminate remaining vestiges of the dual system. The court, through a series of 1977-1978 orders and hearings, directed the school board to develop and implement specific plans making Morgan a high-quality magnet program capable of attracting students of all races, while emphasizing that primary responsibility for effective desegregation rests with the district rather than the court or its tri-ethnic committee. The opinion incorporates prior orders and sets further hearings to monitor progress toward a unitary system.

civil rights

This case involves Calvin Sellars' federal habeas corpus petition challenging his Texas capital conviction, focusing on claims of perjured police testimony and a coerced confession obtained after his arrest. After hearing additional evidence, the court credited former officer Schallert's account that Sellars was placed face-down in a police vehicle and found officer Hodges' contrary testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies, demeanor, and implausibility. The court concluded the arrest was conducted in an isolated manner to intimidate Sellars into believing he was at the officers' mercy, rendering his subsequent statements involuntary and the trial testimony perjured. Having previously offered the state a retrial opportunity and receiving no evidence that Sellars posed a current flight risk or danger, the court ordered his release on personal recognizance pending appeal.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved contractors and a trade association challenging the Department of Energy's actions on a federal construction project, specifically the denial of an administrative appeal from an initial wage determination under the Davis-Bacon Act and related Department of Labor regulations. The court decided that the Executive Branch could not constitutionally deprive the plaintiffs of their right to such an appeal. The core reasoning was that the regulations created a reasonable and protectable expectation of due process by requiring scrupulous adherence to procedures for reconsideration and appeal to the Wage Appeals Board, with no valid reason for bypassing them, and that plaintiffs qualified as interested parties with standing under those rules.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved multiple plaintiffs arrested at Surfside Beach in Brazoria County, Texas, on May 11, 1975, who claimed they were detained without probable cause and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, including being confined in an overheated patrol vehicle for an extended period. A jury determined that certain officers, including Saldivar and Maddox, lacked probable cause for some arrests, which were made in retaliation for the exercise of constitutional rights, and that some plaintiffs endured unconstitutional conditions of confinement without the officers acting in good faith. The court entered judgment awarding damages to plaintiffs such as Hawkins, Polk, Cowley, and Dean based on the jury's findings and ordered expungement of arrest records for Dean and Cowley. The reasoning relied on the jury's resolution of factual disputes regarding probable cause and the officers' conduct, combined with undisputed facts about the circumstances of the arrests and confinement.

civil rightscriminal law

Jerry Burnaman, a long-serving vocational teacher and counselor in the Bay City Independent School District, sued the district, its superintendent, and its high school principal after receiving an unfavorable evaluation and non-renewal recommendation under new administrators, claiming violations of the district's published Policies on objective evaluations and non-renewal procedures as well as First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court found that the defendants had failed to follow the Policies' requirements for evaluations based on definite standards and had acted with bad faith, unreasonable obstinacy, and obdurate behavior, as supported by trial evidence and jury findings. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court awarded attorney fees to Burnaman on the basis of the defendants' conduct, while noting the district's non-person status under § 1983 but declining further analysis.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

The case involved employees of Dow Chemical Company who filed a state court lawsuit challenging a provision in the company's retirement plan that reduced benefits by the amount of workers' compensation received, alleging violations of Texas law and federal ERISA statutes. The defendant removed the case to federal district court, and the plaintiffs sought to remand it. The court denied the motion to remand and dismissed the case without prejudice, reasoning that the allegations raised federal questions under ERISA, which preempts state regulation of pension plans and grants exclusive federal jurisdiction over claims challenging plan provisions, and that the non-removal provision for workers' compensation cases did not apply.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure