Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This mandamus proceeding arose out of the public-corruption prosecution centering around former Dallas City Council Member Don Hill and various other members of Dallas city government who conspired to solicit and accept things of value in exchange for providing official assistance to Brian Potashnik in his pursuit of city approval and funding for various affordable-housing development projects. One of the things of value Mr. Hill and his coconspirators solicited was the award of construction subcontracts on Mr. Potashnik's developments to Ronald Slovacek. Petitioners, competitors of Mr. Potashnik who were seeking city approval of their own affordable-housing developments, sought restitution alleging that Mr. Slovacek and his coconspirators had rendered petitioners' $1.8 million investment worthless. At issue was whether the court should grant petitioners' writ of mandamus directing the district court to recognize that petitioners were crime victims within the meaning of the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3), and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA"), 18 U.S.C. 3663A. The court denied the petition and held that the district court was not clearly and indisputably wrong to find that petitioners failed to prove that they had been directly and proximately harmed by Mr. Slovacek's criminal conduct. The court also denied each of petitioners' pending motions.

Defendant appealed a restitution order when he plead guilty to one count of possession of child pornography and the district court ordered him to pay restitution to one of the children ("child") portrayed in the images he possessed. At issue was whether 18 U.S.C. 2259 included a proximate causation requirement and whether the restitution order exceeded the amount of the child's losses that his offense caused. The court held that the child was eligible for restitution as a "victim" of defendant's crime of possessing images of her abuse pursuant to section 2259(c) and that the other provisions of section 2259 did not require additional proof of causal connection between defendant's conduct and the child's recoverable losses. The court also vacated the order and remanded where it could not discern from the record any supportable rationale for the district court's order.

Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, sued defendants alleging that defendants failed to keep its premises reasonably safe and failed to warn the husband of unknown dangers when the husband injured himself at defendants' store. At issue was whether summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper where the husband was injured while leaning on a chain hanging from defendants' premises during a grocery delivery the husband made to defendants' store. The court held that summary judgment was not proper where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the reasonable safety of the chain and defendants' store, the defendants' failure to warn the husband of any danger, and the degree of fault attributed to the husband.

Plaintiffs, workers who were employed in cleaning up radioactive materials, alleged that they were harmed by excessive exposure to radiation at a Texas work site and brought a tort action in a New York state court against their employer and supervisors under the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. 2011 ("Act") and Texas law. At issue was whether the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' bodily injury claims for failure to provide evidence that excessive radiation exposure at the cleanup site caused plaintiffs' injuries. Also at issue was whether the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' offensive contact claims based on the merits. Further at issue was whether plaintiffs' claims were compensable under the Act. The court held that the district court properly entered summary judgment for defendants on plaintiffs' bodily injury claims where plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was a causal connection between the radiation exposure and plaintiffs' claimed injuries. The court also held that the district court erred by holding that plaintiffs' offensive contact claims did not arise under federal law where those claims were part of a suit which was a public liability action. The court further held that plaintiffs may not recover on their offensive contact claims where such a recovery would be inconsistent with the Act when plaintiffs have not shown that their radiation exposure caused their alleged physical injuries and that their exposure constituted a nuclear incident.

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against defendant seeking to sue on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who were exposed to the petroleum coke dust released from defendant's refinery. At issue was whether the district court's order certifying a class was an abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in determining that common issues predominated and in certifying the class where the district court had not seriously considered the administration of the trial when it failed to adequately analyze and balance the common issues against the individual issues.