Legal Opinion
Elsholtz v. Taser International, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided January 5, 2006No. 3:05-mj-00487PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
MEANS, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Remand [document number 9]. After careful consideration of the motion, the related briefs, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the motion should be denied.
Plaintiff originally brought this suit in state court on June 22, 2004, against the City of Fort Worth (“the City”). Plaintiff asserted claims against the City under the Texas Tort Claims Act, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ¶ 101.021(2) (Vernon 2005). Specifically, Plaintiff complained that the City negligently maintained and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jeretta Kay Tedford v. Warner-Lambert Co. Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Co. Parke-Davis Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Sankyo Parke-Davis Pfizer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
- Shiver v. Sprintcom, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2001
3Cited by1 opinion
- Windsor Court Hotel Partners, L.L.C. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company and Landmark American Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2026