Legal Opinion
Tompkins v. Cyr
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided January 7, 1998No. 3-94-CV-0973-BDPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KAPLAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Twenty-seven defendants have filed three separate motions for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant Texans United for Life (“TUL”) has also filed a motion for default judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the motions are denied.
I
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Norman T. Tompkins and Carolyn Tompkins sued 38 different pro-life activists and organizations for intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference, invasion of privacy,…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Patricia Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988
- National Organization for Women, Inc. v. ScheidlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Goodstone v. Southwest Airlines Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Shelton Modelist v. Gray MillerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
- Hamm v. Hiler (In Re Smyth)District Court, W.D. Texas · 1999
- Gezu v. Charter CommunicationsDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2021
- Minze v. KingDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.