Cases

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: In its capacity as a public employer, the state bears special constitutional burdens. Notably, the First Amendment restricts the state’s ability to fire employees who speak out on matters of public concern. But this doctrine is limited; after all, “the First Amendment does not require a public office to be run as a roundtable for employee complaints ove

The opinion of the court was delivered by ST. JOHN, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned). The primary issue addressed in this appeal is whether the driver of a delivery truck owed a duty of care to an unseen trespasser, who fell off the back of the truck and was injured. We hold that the driver had no duty to inspect the rear of the vehicle for unauthorized riders. Plaintiffs

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Carroll Touch, Inc. appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois holding that Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc. (EMS) did not infringe claim 24 of U.S. Patent 4,267,443 and that the ’443 patent is invalid. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1349, 1992 WL

OPINION EDELSTEIN, Chief Judge: The instant controversy arose during pretrial proceedings in the Penn Central Commercial Paper Litigation (MDL-56A). This litigation involves a number of eases consolidated for pretrial purposes before this court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistriet Litigation, 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (1970). The principal defendant is Goldman, Sachs & Co. (Goldman, Sachs). It sold approxima

ACCEPTED 03-14-00738-CV 4853036 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXA