In Paredes v. Thaler, No. 07-70009, a capital habeas matter, the court affirmed the denial of petitioner's habeas petition, holding that 1) the Texas courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court because whether the jury charge at issue went beyond the limits of how a state may define a single offense of multiple murder was not clearly established; and 2) petitioner could not establish prejudice from the disjunctive jury charge because the jury was also permitted to conclude that he was criminally responsible for the murders under Texas's law of parties even if he did not personally shoot any of the victims.
DPC Indus., Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., No. 09-20634, concerned an action seeking additional insurance coverage against a liability insurer. The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that 1) nothing in the policy or an additional endorsement required that an insured property be actually owned or operated by the specific entity seeking coverage related to that facility; and 2) the record contained uncontradicted evidence that defendant provided indemnity coverage to plaintiff.
- Full Text of Paredes v. Thaler, No. 07-70009
- Full Text of DPC Indus., Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., No. 09-20634