Designated for publication Southwick, J. (Higginbotham, Southwick, Higginson), Texas Water Code, suretyship Affirming summary judgment in favor of surety on issue regarding whether private developers were entitled to offset for liquidated damages related to delay in completion of the projects, where offset was provided for by Texas Water Code for “district contract[s].” While a municipal … More January 12, 2023, opinions
Designated for publication Clement, J. (Smith, Clement, Haynes), Haynes, J., dissenting; Title VII, employment discrimination Affirming summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims that he was not adequately trained for the testing that would determine if he would be retained or fired from Exxon’s polypropylene manufacturing facility because he was Black. The Court first held, differently from … More January 10, 2023, opinions
Designated for publication per curiam (Smith, Southwick, Douglas), criminal, restitution Affirming the denial of a motion for adjustment of a restitution order, holding that an inmate’s $1400 stimulus payment under the American Rescue Plan Act was not exempt from being applied toward a restitution order. Unpublished per curiam (King, Stewart, Haynes), criminal, guilty plea Affirming … More January 9, 2023, opinions
Catching up from traveling, so summaries of published opinions will not include the usual detail. Designated for publication Elrod, J. (joined by Richman, Jones, Smith, Stewart, Southwick, Haynes, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, JJ.); Haynes, J. (joined by Richman, C.J.), concurring in judgment only; Ho, J. (joined by Richman, Southwick, JJ.), concurring in part … More January 3-6, 2023, opinions
Designated for publication Southwick, J. (Higginbotham, Southwick, Higginson), appellate jurisdiction Dismissing appeal from denial of motion to quash grand jury subpoenas and compelling compliance with a grand jury subpoena. The Court held that “[t]here is no jurisdiction for appeals challenging a grand jury subpoena for production of documents unless (1) the appellant has been held … More December 28-30, 2022, opinions
Designated for publication Graves, J. (Graves, Willett, Engelhardt), insurance Affirming declaratory judgment in favor of insurance company that it did not owe coverage or defense to its insured for damages incurred by insured’s employees. Southwick, J. (Higginbotham, Southwick, Higginson), excessive force, municipal liability Reversing 12(b)(6) dismissal of excessive force claims against officer who punched plaintiff … More December 21-22, 2022, opinions
Unpublished per curiam (Jones, Smith, Graves), intellectual property Affirming judgment in favor of Lisa Fodera declaring her the lawful owner of Julian Jackson’s 50% interest in the Ohio Players’ music rights. per curiam (Jones, Smith, Graves), immigration Denying in part and dismissing in part Cameroonian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order denying motion for … More December 20, 2022, opinions
Designated for publication Southwick, J. (Jones, Southwick, Ho), criminal, sufficiency of evidence, search and seizure Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding; affirming conviction of _________; reversing conviction of for insufficient evidence; and remanding for Government to elect between overlapping counts of ________. The Court found no reversible error in the district court’s denial … More December 19, 2022, opinions
Designated for publication Ho, J. (Richman, Ho, Engelhardt), Richman, C.J., concurring; immigration Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming IJ’s denial of motion to reopen proceedings for removal in absentia. The Court held that the IJ did not err in finding that the failure to provide the petitioner with a Notice to … More December 15, 2022, opinions
Designated for publication Jones, J. (Jones, Stewart, Duncan), foreign discovery Reversing 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) order for foreign discovery, and remanding for further proceedings. The Court held that the district court “misconstrued our precedent and erroneously rebuffed respondents’ challenge” to a discovery order’s “validity pursuant to statutory requirements and the Supreme Court’s ‘Intel factors.’” (Citing … More December 13, 2022, opinions
