16 Cited authorities

Adams v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut
465 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2006) Cited 1,142 times
Finding the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to apply an untimely response because after two extensions, the nonmovant “had ample time to comply with the extended deadline”
Weisgram v. Marley Co.
528 U.S. 440 (2000) Cited 349 times
Holding that a district court, when considering post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, may disregard "testimony erroneously admitted"
Baranowski v. Hart
486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 754 times
Holding that budgetary and security concerns were a compelling governmental interest justifying the failure to provide kosher meals to a Jewish inmate
Rink v. Cheminova, Inc.
400 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2005) Cited 565 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding transposition of temperature data from one site where chemicals were stored to another based on conjecture storage conditions were similar and sites were all in same basic latitudinal range lacked the "intellectual rigor" required by Daubert
Matter of Southmark Corp.
88 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 351 times
Holding a court, when determining whether to grant leave to amend, may consider the failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed and futility of the proposed amendment
Cupit v. Whitley
28 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 353 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Confrontation Clause inquiry must determine not only whether hearsay evidence is admissible but also whether it is "material," i.e., whether it was "crucial" or "critical" in the "framework of the whole trial"
Castillo v. Frank
70 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 1995) Cited 271 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the magistrate judge has referral authority to decide non-dispositive discovery motions and the district court is to apply a "clearly erroneous" standard of review
Freeman v. County of Bexar
142 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1998) Cited 171 times
Finding that the district court is free to consider additional evidence and should not be compelled to ignore that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their best evidence to the magistrate judge
Eckhardt v. Qualitest Pharm., Inc.
751 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2014) Cited 42 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no liability under Texas Law
Knight v. Kellogg Brown
333 F. App'x 1 (5th Cir. 2009) Cited 47 times
Applying Louisiana law
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 504,330 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"
Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Cited 168,221 times 20 Legal Analyses
Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order
Section 208.24 - Distributing and dispensing a Medication Guide
21 C.F.R. § 208.24 Cited 40 times
Requiring drug manufacturers to make Medication Guides available for distribution to each patient with each prescription, by providing them—or the means to produce them—to distributors, packers, or authorized dispensers of the drug

Priest v. Sandoz Inc.

16 Cited authorities

Finding the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to apply an untimely response because after two extensions, the nonmovant “had ample time to comply with the extended deadline”

Holding that a district court, when considering post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, may disregard "testimony erroneously admitted"

Holding that budgetary and security concerns were a compelling governmental interest justifying the failure to provide kosher meals to a Jewish inmate

Holding transposition of temperature data from one site where chemicals were stored to another based on conjecture storage conditions were similar and sites were all in same basic latitudinal range lacked the "intellectual rigor" required by Daubert

Holding a court, when determining whether to grant leave to amend, may consider the failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed and futility of the proposed amendment

Holding that Confrontation Clause inquiry must determine not only whether hearsay evidence is admissible but also whether it is "material," i.e., whether it was "crucial" or "critical" in the "framework of the whole trial"

Holding the magistrate judge has referral authority to decide non-dispositive discovery motions and the district court is to apply a "clearly erroneous" standard of review

Finding that the district court is free to consider additional evidence and should not be compelled to ignore that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to present their best evidence to the magistrate judge

Finding no liability under Texas Law

Applying Louisiana law

Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order

Requiring drug manufacturers to make Medication Guides available for distribution to each patient with each prescription, by providing them—or the means to produce them—to distributors, packers, or authorized dispensers of the drug