US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling
Headline: Fifth Circuit: 'Take-or-pay' clause requires payment to trigger breach claim
Citation: 135 F.4th 303
Brief at a Glance
Failure to meet a contract's minimum payment condition means no breach occurred, and related claims are preempted by a specific Texas oilfield services law.
- Always ensure payment obligations, especially minimum fees in 'take-or-pay' clauses, are met to avoid waiving breach of contract claims.
- Understand that specialized statutes like the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act can preempt common law claims, requiring adherence to statutory procedures.
- Review contract language carefully to identify conditions precedent that must be satisfied before performance obligations arise.
Case Summary
US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling, decided by Fifth Circuit on April 28, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to SE Directional Drilling (SEDD) in a dispute over a subcontract for oilfield services. The court held that Trinity Energy Services (Trinity) failed to establish a breach of contract because the "take-or-pay" provision in the subcontract was not triggered by SEDD's failure to provide services, as Trinity had not paid the required "minimum payment." The court also found that Trinity's claims for unjust enrichment and fraud were preempted by the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA). The court held: The court held that a "take-or-pay" provision in a subcontract requires the party seeking to enforce it to have made the "minimum payment" specified in the contract, and absent such payment, a breach claim based on the failure to provide services cannot succeed.. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Trinity Energy Services failed to establish a breach of contract claim because it did not tender the "minimum payment" required by the "take-or-pay" clause, which was a condition precedent to SEDD's obligation to provide services.. The court held that Trinity's claim for unjust enrichment was barred by the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA) because the claim sought to recover for services that were the subject of an express contract.. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Trinity's fraud claim, finding it was also preempted by TOGLA as it arose from the same contractual dispute over services and payment.. The court concluded that the "take-or-pay" provision was unambiguous and did not require SEDD to perform services if the minimum payment was not made.. This decision clarifies the enforceability of 'take-or-pay' clauses in oilfield service contracts, emphasizing that the client must meet their payment obligations before demanding performance. It also reinforces the broad preemptive scope of the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act, limiting alternative claims when a contract dispute falls within its purview.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
A company hired to do oilfield work didn't get paid what it was owed because the other company didn't meet a key contract requirement. The court ruled that the company that didn't pay met its obligations under the contract, so the other company couldn't claim breach of contract. Additionally, other claims were blocked by a specific Texas law for oilfield services.
For Legal Practitioners
The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of contract because the 'take-or-pay' provision's condition precedent (payment of minimum fee) was not met. Furthermore, common law claims for unjust enrichment and fraud were preempted by the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA), as they arose from the same conduct addressed by the statute.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the importance of satisfying conditions precedent in contracts. The court found no breach of the 'take-or-pay' clause because the plaintiff failed to make the required minimum payment, thus excusing the defendant's performance. The ruling also highlights the preemptive effect of specialized statutes like TOGLA on common law claims.
Newsroom Summary
A Texas appeals court ruled that an oilfield services company was not in breach of contract for failing to provide services because the other party never made a required minimum payment. The court also dismissed related claims, citing a state law that provides exclusive remedies for oil and gas work.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that a "take-or-pay" provision in a subcontract requires the party seeking to enforce it to have made the "minimum payment" specified in the contract, and absent such payment, a breach claim based on the failure to provide services cannot succeed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Trinity Energy Services failed to establish a breach of contract claim because it did not tender the "minimum payment" required by the "take-or-pay" clause, which was a condition precedent to SEDD's obligation to provide services.
- The court held that Trinity's claim for unjust enrichment was barred by the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA) because the claim sought to recover for services that were the subject of an express contract.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Trinity's fraud claim, finding it was also preempted by TOGLA as it arose from the same contractual dispute over services and payment.
- The court concluded that the "take-or-pay" provision was unambiguous and did not require SEDD to perform services if the minimum payment was not made.
Key Takeaways
- Always ensure payment obligations, especially minimum fees in 'take-or-pay' clauses, are met to avoid waiving breach of contract claims.
- Understand that specialized statutes like the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act can preempt common law claims, requiring adherence to statutory procedures.
- Review contract language carefully to identify conditions precedent that must be satisfied before performance obligations arise.
- Consult legal counsel to navigate the complexities of oil and gas lien acts and contract disputes.
- When providing or contracting for oilfield services in Texas, be aware of TOGLA's exclusive remedy provisions.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De novo review for summary judgment rulings, meaning the appellate court reviews the case as if it were hearing it for the first time, without deference to the lower court's decision. The Fifth Circuit applies this standard to determine if the district court correctly found no genuine dispute of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the Fifth Circuit on appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which granted summary judgment in favor of SE Directional Drilling (SEDD). Trinity Energy Services (Trinity) sought review of this decision.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof was on Trinity Energy Services to demonstrate a breach of contract and establish its claims for unjust enrichment and fraud. To survive summary judgment, Trinity had to present evidence showing a genuine dispute of material fact on each element of its claims. SEDD, as the moving party for summary judgment, had the initial burden to show the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact.
Legal Tests Applied
Breach of Contract
Elements: Existence of a valid contract · Plaintiff's performance or tender of performance · Defendant's breach · Damages resulting from the breach
The court found Trinity failed to establish the 'defendant's breach' element. The 'take-or-pay' provision required Trinity to pay a minimum amount regardless of service usage. Because Trinity did not pay this minimum amount, the condition triggering SEDD's obligation to provide services (or pay damages for non-provision) was not met. Therefore, SEDD's failure to provide services did not constitute a breach under the contract's terms.
Unjust Enrichment
Elements: Defendant received a benefit · Benefit was at plaintiff's expense · Unjust for defendant to retain the benefit
The court held that Trinity's unjust enrichment claim was preempted by the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA). TOGLA provides an exclusive remedy for claims related to oil and gas services, superseding common law claims like unjust enrichment when they arise from the same set of facts.
Fraud
Elements: Misrepresentation of material fact · Knowledge of falsity · Intent to induce reliance · Justifiable reliance · Damages
Similar to the unjust enrichment claim, the court determined that Trinity's fraud claim was also preempted by TOGLA. The alleged fraudulent conduct related to the provision of oilfield services, falling squarely within the scope of TOGLA's exclusive remedies.
Statutory References
| Tex. Prop. Code § 56.001 et seq. | Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA) — TOGLA provides a statutory lien and exclusive remedies for persons who provide labor or services for the drilling or operation of oil and gas wells. The Fifth Circuit held that TOGLA preempted Trinity's common law claims for unjust enrichment and fraud because these claims arose from the same conduct that TOGLA was designed to address. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"Because Trinity did not pay the minimum payment required by the take-or-pay provision, the condition precedent to SEDD’s obligation to provide services was not met, and therefore SEDD did not breach the contract by failing to provide services."
"The Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act provides a statutory lien and exclusive remedies for persons who provide labor or services for the drilling or operation of oil and gas wells."
"The common law claims of unjust enrichment and fraud are preempted by the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act when they arise from the same conduct that the Act is designed to address."
Remedies
Affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of SE Directional Drilling.Dismissed Trinity Energy Services' claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud.
Entities and Participants
Judges
Key Takeaways
- Always ensure payment obligations, especially minimum fees in 'take-or-pay' clauses, are met to avoid waiving breach of contract claims.
- Understand that specialized statutes like the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act can preempt common law claims, requiring adherence to statutory procedures.
- Review contract language carefully to identify conditions precedent that must be satisfied before performance obligations arise.
- Consult legal counsel to navigate the complexities of oil and gas lien acts and contract disputes.
- When providing or contracting for oilfield services in Texas, be aware of TOGLA's exclusive remedy provisions.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You signed a contract for specialized equipment rental that includes a 'minimum usage fee' clause. You then decide not to use the equipment as much as anticipated.
Your Rights: Your right to avoid paying the minimum fee is likely gone if you didn't pay it as required by the contract. If you don't pay, you may not be able to claim the equipment provider breached the contract by not being ready to provide services.
What To Do: Carefully review your contract's 'take-or-pay' or minimum fee clauses. Ensure you understand the conditions precedent for the other party's performance and your own payment obligations. If unsure, consult with legal counsel before signing or if disputes arise.
Scenario: You provided services for an oil and gas project in Texas and believe the client owes you money beyond the contract, claiming unjust enrichment or fraud.
Your Rights: Your right to pursue common law claims like unjust enrichment or fraud may be limited or eliminated if the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA) applies to your services. TOGLA often provides the exclusive remedy.
What To Do: Determine if your services fall under TOGLA. If so, understand the specific procedures and deadlines within TOGLA for filing liens and claims. Consult an attorney experienced in Texas oil and gas law to ensure you are using the correct legal avenue.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal to sue for unjust enrichment if I provided oilfield services in Texas?
Depends. While unjust enrichment is a valid legal claim in many situations, the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA) often preempts common law claims like unjust enrichment when they arise from the same conduct related to oil and gas services. You must typically pursue remedies under TOGLA.
This applies specifically to services related to oil and gas operations in Texas.
Practical Implications
For Oilfield service providers in Texas
You must strictly adhere to the terms of your contracts, especially regarding payment schedules and minimum commitments. Common law claims like unjust enrichment or fraud may not be available if your dispute falls under the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA), requiring you to follow TOGLA's specific procedures.
For Companies contracting for oilfield services in Texas
You can rely on the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA) to potentially preempt common law claims from service providers if their dispute relates to services covered by the Act. However, ensure your contracts clearly define obligations, especially 'take-or-pay' provisions, to avoid ambiguity.
Related Legal Concepts
An event or action that must occur before a party's contractual duty becomes bin... Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA)
A Texas statute providing specific lien rights and remedies for those who provid... Common Law Preemption
The doctrine where a statute supersedes or replaces existing common law principl... Unjust Enrichment
A legal principle preventing one party from unfairly benefiting at another's exp...
Frequently Asked Questions (37)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (8)
Q: What is US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling about?
US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling is a case decided by Fifth Circuit on April 28, 2025. It involves Private Civil Federal.
Q: What court decided US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling?
US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling was decided by the Fifth Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.
Q: When was US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling decided?
US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling was decided on April 28, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling?
The citation for US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling is 135 F.4th 303. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What type of case is US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling?
US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling is classified as a "Private Civil Federal" case. This describes the nature of the legal dispute at issue.
Q: What is a 'take-or-pay' provision?
A 'take-or-pay' provision requires a party to either take a certain amount of goods or services or pay a minimum fee for them, even if they don't use them. In this case, Trinity had to pay SEDD a minimum amount regardless of service usage.
Q: What was the outcome of the appeal in US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling?
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling in favor of SE Directional Drilling. Trinity Energy Services' claims were dismissed, with the court finding no breach of contract and that other claims were preempted by state law.
Q: How does a 'take-or-pay' clause affect risk allocation in a contract?
It shifts some risk to the buyer (or service user), ensuring the seller (or service provider) receives a minimum level of compensation regardless of actual usage. This provides financial stability for the provider but requires careful consideration by the user.
Legal Analysis (15)
Q: Is US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling published?
US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling. Key holdings: The court held that a "take-or-pay" provision in a subcontract requires the party seeking to enforce it to have made the "minimum payment" specified in the contract, and absent such payment, a breach claim based on the failure to provide services cannot succeed.; The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Trinity Energy Services failed to establish a breach of contract claim because it did not tender the "minimum payment" required by the "take-or-pay" clause, which was a condition precedent to SEDD's obligation to provide services.; The court held that Trinity's claim for unjust enrichment was barred by the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA) because the claim sought to recover for services that were the subject of an express contract.; The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Trinity's fraud claim, finding it was also preempted by TOGLA as it arose from the same contractual dispute over services and payment.; The court concluded that the "take-or-pay" provision was unambiguous and did not require SEDD to perform services if the minimum payment was not made..
Q: Why is US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling important?
US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling has an impact score of 20/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision clarifies the enforceability of 'take-or-pay' clauses in oilfield service contracts, emphasizing that the client must meet their payment obligations before demanding performance. It also reinforces the broad preemptive scope of the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act, limiting alternative claims when a contract dispute falls within its purview.
Q: What precedent does US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling set?
US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that a "take-or-pay" provision in a subcontract requires the party seeking to enforce it to have made the "minimum payment" specified in the contract, and absent such payment, a breach claim based on the failure to provide services cannot succeed. (2) The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Trinity Energy Services failed to establish a breach of contract claim because it did not tender the "minimum payment" required by the "take-or-pay" clause, which was a condition precedent to SEDD's obligation to provide services. (3) The court held that Trinity's claim for unjust enrichment was barred by the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA) because the claim sought to recover for services that were the subject of an express contract. (4) The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Trinity's fraud claim, finding it was also preempted by TOGLA as it arose from the same contractual dispute over services and payment. (5) The court concluded that the "take-or-pay" provision was unambiguous and did not require SEDD to perform services if the minimum payment was not made.
Q: What are the key holdings in US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling?
1. The court held that a "take-or-pay" provision in a subcontract requires the party seeking to enforce it to have made the "minimum payment" specified in the contract, and absent such payment, a breach claim based on the failure to provide services cannot succeed. 2. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Trinity Energy Services failed to establish a breach of contract claim because it did not tender the "minimum payment" required by the "take-or-pay" clause, which was a condition precedent to SEDD's obligation to provide services. 3. The court held that Trinity's claim for unjust enrichment was barred by the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA) because the claim sought to recover for services that were the subject of an express contract. 4. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Trinity's fraud claim, finding it was also preempted by TOGLA as it arose from the same contractual dispute over services and payment. 5. The court concluded that the "take-or-pay" provision was unambiguous and did not require SEDD to perform services if the minimum payment was not made.
Q: What cases are related to US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling?
Precedent cases cited or related to US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling: In re Deepwater Horizon, 745 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2014); Tex. Prop. Code § 56.001 et seq..
Q: What was the main reason Trinity Energy Services lost its breach of contract claim?
Trinity lost because it failed to meet a condition precedent in the contract: paying the minimum amount required by the 'take-or-pay' provision. Since Trinity didn't pay, SEDD's obligation to provide services wasn't triggered, meaning SEDD didn't breach the contract.
Q: Why were Trinity's claims for unjust enrichment and fraud dismissed?
These claims were dismissed because they were preempted by the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA). TOGLA provides the exclusive legal remedies for disputes arising from oil and gas services, superseding common law claims like unjust enrichment and fraud.
Q: What is the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA)?
TOGLA is a Texas state law that grants specific lien rights and outlines the exclusive remedies for individuals and companies providing labor or services for the drilling or operation of oil and gas wells.
Q: Does TOGLA apply to all oilfield service disputes in Texas?
TOGLA generally applies to claims arising from services provided for the drilling or operation of oil and gas wells. If your dispute falls under this category, TOGLA likely provides the exclusive remedies, preempting other common law claims.
Q: What is summary judgment?
Summary judgment is a court order that resolves a lawsuit without a full trial. It's granted when there are no significant factual disputes, and the law clearly favors one party. The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the lower court correctly granted summary judgment.
Q: What is a 'condition precedent' in a contract?
A condition precedent is an event or action that must occur before a party's contractual duty becomes enforceable. In this case, Trinity's payment of the minimum fee was a condition precedent to SEDD's obligation to provide services.
Q: What happens if a contract claim is 'preempted' by a statute?
If a claim is preempted, it means the statute takes precedence over and replaces the common law claim. The party cannot pursue the common law claim; they must use the remedies provided by the statute, if any.
Q: Can I still sue for fraud if I provided oilfield services in Texas?
It depends. If your fraud claim arises from the same conduct that the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA) covers, then TOGLA likely preempts your fraud claim, and you must pursue remedies under TOGLA instead.
Q: Did the court consider the specific details of the oilfield services provided?
The court focused on the contractual terms, specifically the 'take-or-pay' provision and the payment of the minimum fee, and the applicability of the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act. The specific nature of the services was less critical than the contractual and statutory framework.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling affect me?
This decision clarifies the enforceability of 'take-or-pay' clauses in oilfield service contracts, emphasizing that the client must meet their payment obligations before demanding performance. It also reinforces the broad preemptive scope of the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act, limiting alternative claims when a contract dispute falls within its purview. As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What should a company do if it believes a 'take-or-pay' clause was breached?
First, carefully review the contract to ensure the 'take-or-pay' condition was actually triggered and that the other party failed to perform. Then, consult with an attorney to understand your rights and the applicable laws, like TOGLA if it's an oilfield service dispute.
Q: How can I protect myself when signing oilfield service contracts in Texas?
Understand all contract terms, especially payment obligations and 'take-or-pay' clauses. Be aware that the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA) may limit your legal options, so ensure your contract aligns with TOGLA's requirements or consult legal counsel.
Q: What are the practical implications of the TOGLA preemption ruling?
For service providers, it means strictly following TOGLA's procedures for liens and claims. For contracting companies, it offers potential protection against common law suits if the dispute falls under TOGLA's scope.
Q: Where can I find the text of the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act?
The Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act is codified in the Texas Property Code, Chapter 56, Sections 56.001 et seq. You can typically find state statutes on official Texas legislative websites or legal research databases.
Historical Context (2)
Q: What is the history of the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act?
The TOGLA was enacted to provide specific protections and remedies for those working in the oil and gas industry, recognizing the unique nature of the work and the potential for non-payment. It aims to streamline and standardize claims related to these operations.
Q: Are there similar lien acts in other states for oil and gas operations?
Yes, many states with significant oil and gas industries have enacted similar lien acts or statutes to govern liens and claims related to drilling and production operations, often providing specific rights and procedures.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling?
The docket number for US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling is 24-10833. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling be appealed?
Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.
Q: What does 'de novo review' mean in this case?
De novo review means the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision as if it were the first court to hear the case. The appellate court gave no deference to the lower court's legal conclusions, examining the facts and law fresh.
Q: What is the role of the appellate court in reviewing summary judgment?
The appellate court reviews the lower court's grant of summary judgment de novo. It determines if the evidence, viewed favorably to the non-moving party, shows a genuine dispute of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 745 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2014)
- Tex. Prop. Code § 56.001 et seq.
Case Details
| Case Name | US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling |
| Citation | 135 F.4th 303 |
| Court | Fifth Circuit |
| Date Filed | 2025-04-28 |
| Docket Number | 24-10833 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Nature of Suit | Private Civil Federal |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 20 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision clarifies the enforceability of 'take-or-pay' clauses in oilfield service contracts, emphasizing that the client must meet their payment obligations before demanding performance. It also reinforces the broad preemptive scope of the Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act, limiting alternative claims when a contract dispute falls within its purview. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Contract interpretation, Breach of contract, Take-or-pay provisions, Texas Oil and Gas Lien Act (TOGLA), Unjust enrichment, Fraud, Preemption |
| Judge(s) | Don R. Willett |
| Jurisdiction | federal |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of US Trinity Engy Svcs v. SE Directional Drilling was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Contract interpretation or from the Fifth Circuit:
-
Battieste v. United States
Fifth Circuit Upholds Warrantless Vehicle Search Under Automobile ExceptionFifth Circuit · 2026-04-22
-
Martin v. Burgess
Fifth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Excessive Force CaseFifth Circuit · 2026-04-22
-
Davis v. Warren
Fifth Circuit Denies Injunction Over Voter Registration FormsFifth Circuit · 2026-04-21
-
Nathan v. Alamo Heights ISD
Teacher's speech not protected by First Amendment; termination upheldFifth Circuit · 2026-04-21
-
Carter v. Dupuy
Fifth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Excessive Force CaseFifth Circuit · 2026-04-20
-
United States v. Lezama-Ramirez
Fifth Circuit: Consent to search vehicle was voluntary despite language barrierFifth Circuit · 2026-04-20
-
Starbucks v. NLRB
Fifth Circuit Reverses NLRB Order Against Starbucks Over Store ClosureFifth Circuit · 2026-04-17
-
United States v. Conchas-Mancilla
Fifth Circuit Upholds Border Patrol Vehicle Stop and SearchFifth Circuit · 2026-04-16