1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.2d
  4. 23 F.Supp.2d
  5. 23 F.Supp.2d 685 (1998)
 

STRAIN v. KAUFMAN COUNTY DIST. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

No. 3:95-CV1800.

23 F.Supp.2d 685 (1998)

James and Una STRAIN, Plaintiffs, v. KAUFMAN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Lisa Gent, Louis Conradt, Texas Department of Regulatory and Protective Services, Joyce Pruitt, Lisa Black, Pamela Sweeney, Rhonda Jones, Shirley Dominey, Virginia Greenwood, Margaret Spain, Catherine Howard, Wilbur F. Howard, James Fangue, Patricia Fangue, Paul Caesar, David McKeon, d/b/a McKeon Counseling Associates, Texas Department of Human Services, Kaufman County, James Nixon, Rodney Kincaid, Pete Hammock, Ivan Johnson, Kaufman County Child Welfare Board, Ruby Snow, Donna Durham, Andrea Brantley, Billie J. Hans, Steve Rhodes, Charlotte McDougald, Mike Sculin, Barbara McBurney, Neldajo Mathison, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

February 23, 1998.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Kenneth Byford and Tisha L. Tanaka of Byford & Associates, P.C., Dallas, TX, for plaintiffs.

Stephen Cass Weiland, Capshaw, Weiland, Goss & Bowers, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Kaufman County defendants.

Dan Morales, Attorney General of Texas and James B. Pinson, Assistant Attorney General, Austin, TX, for State defendants.

Randall Lee Roberts of Blalack & Williams, P.C., for Howard defendants.

David S. Mallard, Law Offices of David S. Mallard, Terrell, TX, for Margaret Spain and McKeon defendants.

Melinda Lee Eitzen, Clark, West, Keller, Butler, & Ellis, Dallas, TX, for Fangue defendants.

Jonathan B. Skidmore, Fulbright & Jaworski, Dallas, TX and Kerry Lawson Pedigo, U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Dallas, TX, for defendant Paul Caesar.

ORDER

BILBY, Senior District Judge.

I. Introduction

Before the Court are defendants' motions for summary judgment. Defendants Lisa Black, Pamela Sweeney, Rhonda Jones, Joyce Pruitt, Shirley Dominey, and Virginia Greenwood (hereinafter the "State Defendants") assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Notwithstanding, they also contend that Plaintiffs fail to: (1) state of causes of action under either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases