March 21, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Johnston v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 23-10019, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Higginbotham, J. (Higginbotham, Smith, Higginson), Higginson, J., dissenting; product liability
    • Reversing denial of judgment as a matter of law after jury verdict for plaintiff in manufacturing defect case arising from plaintiff’s injury while using propane tank manufactured by defendant, finding insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict, and rendering JMOL for defendant.
    • Judge Higginson dissented. “Crucially, though a district court’s denial of a JMOL is reviewed de novo, such review is ‘especially deferential’ after a jury trial, as this court is ‘wary of upsetting jury verdicts.’ Yet in reversing this jury verdict, which was both unanimous and upheld after scrutiny by the trial judge, the majority fails to adhere to the required deference.” (Citations omitted).
  • U.S. v. Santiago, 23-30149, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Smith, J. (Higginbotham, Smith, Higginson), Higginson, J., concurring; criminal, guilty plea, sentencing
    • Affirming guilty plea conviction arising from shootout during drug transaction at a motel, but vacating upward-variance sentence of 360 months as an error in calculation of the guideline range, and remanding for resentencing.
    • Judge Higginson concurred, highlighting the district court’s “inconsistencies and failures to explain” with regard to substantive differences in the sentencing determination contained in the written judgment and what was explained at the oral sentencing hearing.
  • RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food & Drug Administration, 23-40076, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Elrod, Graves), First Amendment, Administrative Procedures Act
    • Reversing district court’s summary judgment in favor of tobacco company on First Amendment and APA challenge to FDA’s labeling requirement in compliance with the Tobacco Control Act. “[T]he warnings are both factual and uncontroversial, so Zauderer scrutiny applies, and the rule passes constitutional muster. Therefore, we reverse and remand the remaining claims for initial consideration by the district court.” (Footnote omitted).
  • Inhance Technologies, L.L.C. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 23-60620, appeal from EPA orders
    • Wilson, J. (Richman, Graves, Wilson), Toxic Substances Control Act, administrative law
    • Vacating EPA enforcement orders against Inhance that were based on determination that Inhance’s fluorination process for plastic containers, which had been in use since 1983, was subject to a Significant New Use Rule regarding PFAS, holding that EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the TSCA.
    • “Had Inhance—or the EPA—known that its fluorination process was implicated by the proposed SNUR, Inhance could have participated in the rule-making process and perhaps prevented its fluorination process from being deemed post hoc a significant new use by the EPA. Instead, because Inhance did not possess ‘extraordinary intuition’ or the ‘aid of a psychic’ to foresee that the EPA would regulate the fluorination industry, Inhance faces being shuttered by the agency’s belated ‘discovery’ of its process. Fortunately for Inhance, such foresight is ‘“’more than the law requires.’ We therefore eschew the EPA’s interpretation of ‘significant new use’ and instead adopt Inhance’s more straightforward interpretation of the statute. And that dooms the EPA’s orders at issue here, because Inhance’s fluorination process was not a significant new use within the purview of Section 5.” (Citations omitted).

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Johnson, 22-10874, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Mahan v. Sikes, 22-40580, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Stewart, Scholer, by designation), First Amendment, whistleblower
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of one plaintiff’s whistleblower act claims, affirming denial of defendants’ motion for JMOL as to other plaintiffs on First Amendment retaliation and whistleblower act claims, vacating entry of equitable relief, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • SXSW, L.L.C. v. Federal Insurance Co., 22-50933, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Oldham, J. (Willett, Engelhardt, Oldham), insurance
    • Reversing summary judgment in favor of insurer on coverage claim arising from suit by ticketholders to the insured’s music festival after festival was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • U.S. v. Webb, 23-10957, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Willett, Duncan), habeas corpus
    • Affirming district court’s dismissal of movant’s motion for evidentiary rule/corpus delicti.
  • U.S. v. Martinez-Flores, 23-10991, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 36-month sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Morant, 23-20126, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Willett, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 327-month career-criminal-enhanced sentence on conviction of three counts of aiding and abetting kidnapping.
  • Jumar v. Panera Bread Co., 23-20178, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Haynes, Higginson), deceptive trade practices, personal tort
    • Affirming dismissal of personal tort claims, and vacating dismissal of deceptive trade practice claims by plaintiff against restaurant chain based on faulty claims that broccoli-cheddar soup was free of meat byproducts, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Reyes-Martinez, 23-40511, c/w 23-40512, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Gonzalez-Dominguez, 23-50795, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.