Finally, Texaco contends that Instruction No. Advertisement ''With the benefit of hindsight, Texaco's trial strategy was obviously catastrophic,'' said Prof. A review by an appellate court of the final judgment in a criminal case, however grave the offense of which the accused is convicted, was not at common law and is not now a necessary element of due process of law. Reversal is not mandated where under the circumstances of the case, including the charge as a whole, the force of the comment may be so weak that it is either not a comment at all or may be said to be harmless. Counsel for Texaco suggested at oral argument that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because Texaco's corporate headquarters is located in that District, and it was there that a Chapter 11 petition would be filed should Texaco decide to take that step as a result of the adverse Texas judgment. First, Texaco asserts that Pennzoil failed to prove that Texaco had actual knowledge that a contract existed.
The abstract must contain certain information required by law. Tribe: Whoever they sued, I think there is a more fundamental problem. But when, as in the present case, the interim injury is the irrevocable destruction of his business, resulting in bankruptcy or liquidation, a reversal will not undo the injury, which cannot be measured in damages and would in no event be recoverable. Texaco simply fails to show how the initiation of corporate reorganization activities would prevent it from obtaining meaningful appellate review. A necessary element of the plaintiff's cause of action is a showing that the defendant took an active part in persuading a party to a contract to breach it. It is a well-settled principle that federal appellate review of judgments rendered by state courts can only occur in this Court, on appeal or by writ of certiorari.
During the four-month jury trial on whether Texaco had wrongly intervened in the Getty deal, Texaco did not strongly object to Pennzoil's calculations of the damages it suffered. Instead, they live in a C. After talking to Gordon Getty, Lipton joined the Texaco people in the lobby and told them that the trustee did want to receive a proposal. However, even though the instruction was unnecessary, we find that its inclusion was not so prejudicial as to require reversal. . On January 5, the Wall Street Journal reported on an agreement reached between Pennzoil and the Getty entities, describing essentially the terms contained in the Memorandum of Agreement.
The instruction correctly states the significance of post-agreement modifications on the question of the parties' prior intent to be bound, which prior intent was the subject of Special Issue No. The Court of Appeals upheld the injunction based on its conclusion that Texaco has a substantial chance of success on the merits of its federal constitutional challenge to the Texas postjudgment procedures. There was evidence that public minority stockholders, with no direct claim to a company's assets, are primarily interested in the return on their investment, i. It's a precedent that is really inimical to good order and procedure. See Brief for Appellee 11.
This hasn't happened, but the three company-owned Pennzoil gas stations in the area began co-branding themselves with in 2003, with more emphasis placed on the 7-Eleven brand name than Pennzoil itself. The Court directs that a formal order granting a preliminary injunction as requested be settled on five 5 days notice. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, 759 F. Parties may always, by mutual consent and understanding, add new provisions spelling out additional terms that were not included in their original agreement. When the board reconvened at 3 p.
Each of Texaco's constitutional and federal claims except those stated by it in its Third and Sixth Claims were raised by it as defenses in the Texas lawsuit and adjudicated against it. First National Bank of Clarksdale, 595 F. These contentions will be discussed later in this opinion. Boisi testified that Texaco expressed a heightened degree of interest in Getty, and Texaco's witnesses testified that Texaco's interest in Getty increased as Texaco got more information. Luce: Chairman of the committee of general creditors of Texaco.
Under the legislation of Congress, no court of the United States other than this Court could entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify the judgment for errors of that character. That application of the supersedeas bond and lien provisions of Texas law effectively precludes Texaco from exercising its right to appeal in the Texas courts and, if necessary, to petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, all in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course, if Texaco were forced to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11, the claims of judgment creditors would be automatically stayed. However, we find that there is legally and factually sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's finding that Texaco actively induced the breach of the Getty entities' agreement with Pennzoil. In light of this demonstrable and long-standing commitment of the Texas Supreme Court to provide access to the state courts, we are reluctant to conclude that Texas courts would have construed state procedural rules to deny Texaco an effective opportunity to raise its constitutional claims.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, , 286, 90 S. Fair Grounds for Litigation and Favorable Balance of Hardships Having shown that without injunctive relief it would suffer irreparable injury, Texaco also had the burden of demonstrating that it has a substantial chance of success on the merits of the present action as distinguished from the merits of its Texas appeal or at least that it has raised fair grounds for litigation and that the balance of hardships tips in its favor. The county clerk must then record the abstract in the county judgment record and enter it in the index to the record. The memorandum was presented to the board. Getty entered into an agreement with Texaco.
The court properly held and Texaco does not contest this conclusion that Texaco's claims arising out of the jury trial itself could not support the injunction, because those claims are appealable only through the Texas courts. Pennzoil argued that the district court should abstain from hearing the case under the doctrine of Younger v. She did not think it was funny when Adam pulled the mask off and took a bite out of the gun as he gave her the purse back. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court decision, on the grounds that the New York court should have abstained interfering with the decision of a state court. Even if Texaco had possessed the power of removal on diversity grounds, it still would not have been entitled to proceed in the forum to which it brought its request for post-trial relief. Turning to the merits, it agreed with the District Court that Texaco had established a likelihood of success on its constitutional claims and that the balance of hardships favored Texaco.