Case: Hopwood v. Texas

1:92-cv-00563 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Filed Date: Sept. 29, 1992

Closed Date: 2001

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 29, 1992, plaintiffs, white law school applicants denied admission to the University of Texas Law School, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, against the State of Texas, the Board of Regents of the Texas State University System, the Law School, and a number of individuals in their official capacities in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division (Judge Sam Sparks). The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Individual Rights, asked the Court for injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the defendants discriminated against them by favoring less qualified black and Mexican American applicants for admission to the University of Texas School of Law through the use of a quota system.

On October 28, 1993, the Court (Judge Sam Sparks), denied defendants' motions for summary judgment for lack of standing and ripeness and for one plaintiff's failure to maintain eligibility for admission.

A bench trial began on May 18, 1994. On August 19, 1994, the Court (Judge Sam Sparks) held that the 1992 admissions procedure violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hopwood v. Texas, 861 F. Supp. 551; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11870 (W.D. TX. August 19, 1994). The court ordered that:

(1) the plaintiffs could reapply and be considered for admission to the law school for the 1995-96 school year without assessment of fees; (2) plaintiffs receive damages in the amount of one dollar each; (3) all further affirmative relief requested by any party herein against any other party was denied including a motion by certain other individuals to intervene. (Docket No. 94-50569.)

On September 19, 1994, plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. On March 18, 1996, the Fifth Circuit (Judge Jeremy E. Smith), dismissed the intervenors' appeal for want of jurisdiction, reversed the judgment as to the initial plaintiffs, and remanded for further proceedings. Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4719 (5th Cir. 1996). The Fifth Circuit held that the University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in determining admissions. The Court held that the plaintiffs had satisfied their burden of showing that they were scrutinized under an unconstitutional admissions system. The Fifth Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs were entitled to reapply, and directed the district court to reconsider the question of damages.

On June 24, 1996, the United States Supreme Court, granted petitioners' motion to consolidate their case with Thurgood Marshall Legal v. Hopwood, 116 S. Ct. 2580, 135 L.Ed. 2d 1094. Texas v. Hopwood, 518 U.S. 1016; 116 S. Ct. 2545 (1996).

On July 26, 1996, the Fifth Circuit, vacated the District Court opinion. Hopwood v. Texas, 95 F.3d 53; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22891 (5th Cir. 1996).

On March 20, 1998, on rehearing, the Court (Judge Sparks) entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and ordering damages in the amount of one dollar ($1.00) each, and enjoining Defendants from considering race in the admission process. The Court awarded plaintiffs $703,992 in attorneys' fees and $571,768 in costs. Hopwood v. Texas, 999 F. Supp. 872 (W.D. TX 1998).

On December 21, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit made findings on the District Court's decision on remand. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court finding that Texas had proved that the Plaintiffs would have had no reasonable chance of being offered admission to the Law School in 1992 under a constitutionally valid, race-blind admissions system. Further, the Court of Appeals found that the District Court failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a) when it failed to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law to justify its injunction prohibiting absolutely the use of race as a factor in the admissions process. The Fifth Circuit reversed the court's grant of the injunction and remanded for further proceedings but affirmed the district court's rulings on attorneys' fees and costs. Hopwood v. Texas, 236 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2000.)

On January 17, 2001, the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit denied the petition for Panel Rehearing. Hopwood v. Texas, 248 F.3d 1141 (5th Cir. 2001).

On June 24, 2001, the United States Supreme Court (Judge William Rehnquist) denied the petition for certiorari. Hopwood v. Texas, 533 U.S. 929 (2001). On July 24, 2001, the District Court closed the file, finding no viable issues remaining to be litigated. Hopwood v. Texas, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10658 (W.D. TX 2001).


1:92-cv-00563	Docket	July 30, 2002	July 30, 2002 Docket
100 1:92-cv-00563	Hopwood v. Texas (District Court Denial of Motion to let Thurgood Marshall Legal Society and Black Pre-Law Association to Intervene as Defendants)	Jan. 20, 1994	Jan. 20, 1994 Order/Opinion 1994 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 21546
94-50083	Hopwood v. Texas (Fifth Circuit Affirmation of Denial of Petitioner's Application to Intervene) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit	May 11, 1994	May 11, 1994 Order/Opinion 21 F.3d 603
170 1:92-cv-00563	Hopwood v. Texas (District Order Memorandum Opinion that 1992 Admission Procedure Violates 14th Opinion)	Aug. 19, 1994	Aug. 19, 1994 Order/Opinion 861 F.Supp. 551
94-50569 94-50664	Hopwood v. Texas (Fifth Circuit Remand to District Court) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit	March 18, 1996	March 18, 1996 Order/Opinion 78 F.3d 932
94-50569 94-50664	Hopwood v. Texas (Fifth Circuit Opinion Denial of Rehearing En Banc) Hopwood v.Texas U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit	April 4, 1996	April 4, 1996 Order/Opinion 84 F.3d 720
95-01773	Texas v. Hopwood (Supreme Court Grant Motion to Consider Petition with Thurgood Marshall Legal v. Hopwood) Supreme Court of the United States	June 24, 1996	June 24, 1996 Order/Opinion 518 U.S. 1016
95-01773	Texas v. Hopwood (U.S. Supreme Court Denial of Writ of Certiorari) Supreme Court of the United States	July 1, 1996	July 1, 1996 Order/Opinion 518 U.S. 1033
95-50062	Hopwood v. Texas (Fifth Circuit Opinion Vacating District Court Opinion) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit	July 26, 1996	July 26, 1996 Order/Opinion 95 F.3d 53
328 1:92-cv-00563	Hopwood v. Texas (District Court Order Finding For Plaintiff and Closing Case)	March 20, 1998	March 20, 1998 Order/Opinion 999 F.Supp. 872

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	Sept. 29, 1992	Complaint filed and 2 summons(es) issued Filing Fee: $ 120.00 Receipt # 207970 (fe) (Entered: 09/29/1992)	RECAP
	Sept. 29, 1992	Court file prepared and forwarded to Judge Sparks. (fe) (Entered: 09/29/1992)	PACER
	Sept. 29, 1992	Court file prepared and forwarded to Judge Sparks. (fe)
2	Oct. 16, 1992	Answer by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents (fe) (Entered: 10/19/1992)	RECAP
3	Oct. 27, 1992	Demand for jury trial by Cheryl J. Hopwood, Stephanie C. Haynes (fe) (Entered: 10/28/1992)	RECAP
4	Nov. 5, 1992	Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents to substitute Javier Aguilar as attorney of record in place of Toni Hunter (fe) (Entered: 11/06/1992)	RECAP
5	Nov. 9, 1992	Order granting motion to substitute Javier Aguilar as attorney of record in place of Toni Hunter [4-1] (fe) (Entered: 11/10/1992)	RECAP
6	Nov. 12, 1992	Unopposed Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents to extend time within which to answer plaintiffs' interrogatories and request for production (fe) (Entered: 11/12/1992)	RECAP
7	Nov. 12, 1992	Amended Notice by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents to take deposition of Cheryl J. Hopwood (fe) (Entered: 11/12/1992)	RECAP
8	Nov. 12, 1992	Notice by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents to take deposition of Stephanie C. Haynes (fe) (Entered: 11/12/1992)	RECAP
9	Nov. 16, 1992	Scheduling order setting Joining of parties, amending of pleadings on 2/14/93 Deadline for filing of all motions 3/16/93 Discovery cutoff 3/16/93 Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 4/15/93 Pretrial conference of attorneys by 3/31/93 (fe) (Entered: 11/17/1992)	RECAP
10	Nov. 18, 1992	Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents for protective order, and for discovery conference (fe) (Entered: 11/18/1992)	RECAP
11	Nov. 18, 1992	Memorandum by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents in support of motion for protective order [10-1], motion discovery conference [10-2] (fe) (Entered: 11/18/1992)	RECAP
12	Nov. 30, 1992	Order granting motion to extend time within which to answer plaintiffs' interrogatories and request for production [6-1] (fe) (Entered: 12/01/1992)	RECAP
13	Nov. 30, 1992	Order, setting a status conference 9:00 12/15/92 (fe) (Entered: 12/01/1992)	RECAP
14	Dec. 3, 1992	Order granting motion discovery conference [10-2], set status conference 4:00 12/17/92 the previous order setting a status conference for December 15, 1992 at 9:00 is Cancelled (fe) (Entered: 12/03/1992)	RECAP
15	Dec. 7, 1992	Unopposed Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood, Stephanie C. Haynes to extend time in which to respond to motion for protective order and for discovery conference. (fe) (Entered: 12/07/1992)	RECAP
16	Dec. 11, 1992	Response by Cheryl J. Hopwood, Stephanie C. Haynes in opposition to motion for protective order [10-1], motion discovery conference [10-2] (fe) (Entered: 12/11/1992)	RECAP
17	Dec. 14, 1992	Order granting motion to extend time in which to respond to motion for protective order and for discovery conference. [15-1] (fe) (Entered: 12/14/1992)	RECAP
18	Dec. 15, 1992	Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents for (Sarah Anderson) to withdraw as attorney (fe) (Entered: 12/15/1992)	RECAP
19	Dec. 15, 1992	Reply by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents to response to motion for protective order [10-1], motion discovery conference [10-2] (fe) (Entered: 12/15/1992)	RECAP
	Dec. 17, 1992	Status conference held (fe)
20	Dec. 18, 1992	Order granting motion for (Sarah Anderson) to withdraw as attorney [18-1] (Terminated attorney Sarah L. Anderson for Bd. of Regents, attorney Sarah L. Anderson for State of Texas (fe) (Entered: 12/18/1992)	RECAP
21	Dec. 22, 1992	Order granting in part, denying in part motion for protective order [10-1]. The court will keep the rest of defendants' Motion for Protective Order UNDER ADVISEMENT. (fe) (Entered: 12/23/1992)	RECAP
22	Dec. 24, 1992	Second Amended Notice by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents to take deposition of Cheryl J. Hopwood (fe) (Entered: 12/29/1992)	RECAP
23	Dec. 31, 1992	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood, Stephanie C. Haynes for leave to file limited response to defendants' reply memorandum in support of a motion for protective order and discovery conference (fe) (Entered: 01/04/1993)	RECAP
24	Jan. 12, 1993	Order regarding a discovery procedure with regard to the issue of "standing". . . (fe) (Entered: 01/13/1993)	RECAP
25	Jan. 19, 1993	Unopposed Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents to extend time in which to take depostions of Law School Admissions Committee Members (fe) (Entered: 01/20/1993)	RECAP
26	Jan. 19, 1993	Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents for summary judgment against Cheryl Hopwood for failure to maintain her eligibility for admission (fe) (Entered: 01/20/1993)	RECAP
27	Jan. 19, 1993	Memorandum by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents in support of motion for summary judgment against Cheryl Hopwood for failure to maintain her eligibility for admission [26-1] (fe) (Entered: 01/20/1993)	RECAP
28	Jan. 21, 1993	Defendant's first supplement to the appendix to memorandum of law in support of motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood for failure to maintain her eligibility for admission. (fe) (Entered: 01/21/1993)	RECAP
29	Jan. 22, 1993	Motion by Stephanie C. Haynes to dismiss plaintiff Stephanie C. Haynes from this lawsuit with prejudice (fe) (Entered: 01/22/1993)	RECAP
30	Jan. 22, 1993	Response by Cheryl J. Hopwood, Stephanie C. Haynes motion to extend time in which to take depostions of Law School Admissions Committee Members [25-1] (fe) (Entered: 01/22/1993)	RECAP
31	Jan. 26, 1993	Ordered that Plaintiff Hopwood timely respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment and FURTHER ORDERED that there will be an enlargement of time for the taking of the depositions following the determination of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. . . (fe) (Entered: 01/26/1993)	RECAP
32	Feb. 2, 1993	Response by Cheryl J. Hopwood, Stephanie C. Haynes motion for summary judgment against Cheryl Hopwood for failure to maintain her eligibility for admission [26-1] (fe) (Entered: 02/03/1993)	RECAP
33	Feb. 11, 1993	Order granting motion to dismiss plaintiff Stephanie C. Haynes from this lawsuit with prejudice [29-1] (fe) (Entered: 02/12/1993)	RECAP
34	Feb. 12, 1993	Reply by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents to response to motion for summary judgment against Cheryl Hopwood for failure to maintain her eligibility for admission [26-1] (fe) (Entered: 02/12/1993)	RECAP
35	Feb. 12, 1993	Order denying motion for summary judgment against Cheryl Hopwood for failure to maintain her eligibility for admission [26-1] Discovery to be completed within sixty days of the date of this order and appropriate briefs within seventy days of the date of this order regarding the standing issue of the plaintiff Hopwood. (fe) (Entered: 02/16/1993)	RECAP
36	April 6, 1993	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood for additional interrogatories and requests for admission and modificationof discovery and briefing schedule (fe) (Entered: 04/08/1993)	RECAP
37	April 12, 1993	Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents with memorandum in support to strike (fe) (Entered: 04/14/1993)	RECAP
38	April 14, 1993	Response by Cheryl J. Hopwood motion to strike [37-1] (fe) (Entered: 04/15/1993)	RECAP
39	April 14, 1993	Supplement to Defendants' reply to plaintiff's motion for additional discovery and Defendants' motion and memorandum to strike. (fe) (Entered: 04/15/1993)	RECAP
40	April 16, 1993	Order granting motion for additional interrogatories and requests for admission and modification of discovery and briefing schedule [36-1] The discovery and briefing deadlines imposed by the Court's order dated February 11, 1993 are extended by 30 days. (fe) (Entered: 04/21/1993)	RECAP
41	April 19, 1993	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood to compel discovery (fe) (Entered: 04/21/1993)	RECAP
42	April 27, 1993	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood to allow plaintiff to withdraw motion for order compelling discovery (fe) (Entered: 04/27/1993)	RECAP
43	April 29, 1993	Order denying motion to strike [37-1] (fe) (Entered: 04/30/1993)	RECAP
44	April 29, 1993	Order granting motion to allow plaintiff to withdraw motion for order compelling discovery [42-1], withdrawing motion to compel discovery [41-1] (fe) (Entered: 04/30/1993)	RECAP
45	May 4, 1993	Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents with memorandum in support for consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood for failure to maintain her eligibility for admission and defendants' request for oral argument on the summary judgment motion (fe) (Entered: 05/05/1993)	RECAP
46	May 4, 1993	Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents with memorandum in support to extend time for filing a motion for summary judgment on the issue of standing (fe) (Entered: 05/05/1993)	RECAP
47	May 6, 1993	Response by Cheryl J. Hopwood motion to extend time for filing a motion for summary judgment on the issue of standing [46-1], motion for consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood for failure to maintain her eligibility for admission and defendants' request for oral argument on the summary judgment motion [45-1] (fe) (Entered: 05/10/1993)	RECAP
48	May 10, 1993	Supplemental Memorandum by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents in support of motion for consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood for failure to maintain her eligibility for admission and defendants' request for oral argument on the summary judgment motion [45-1] (fe) (Entered: 05/11/1993)	RECAP
49	May 11, 1993	Order granting motion to extend time for filing a motion for summary judgment on the issue of standing [46-1], granting in part, denying in part motion for consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood for failure to maintain her eligibility for admission and defendants' request for oral argument on the summary judgment motion [45-1], discovery deadline 6/5/93 FURTHER ORDERED that defendants have forty (40) days from the date of this order to reurge their motion for summary judgment. . . (fe) (Entered: 05/12/1993)	RECAP
50	May 18, 1993	Reurging of Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents for summary judgment against Plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood for Failure to Maintain her Eligibility for Admission, and Request for Oral Argument on the Summary Judgment Motion (fe) (Entered: 05/18/1993)	RECAP
51	May 24, 1993	Order granting motion Request for Oral Argument on the Summary Judgment Motion [50-2] set hearing for 6/1/93 at 2:00 (fe) (Entered: 05/25/1993)	RECAP
	May 24, 1993	Motion hearing set at 2:00 6/1/93 on motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood for Failure to Maintain her Eligibility for Admission [50−1] (fe) (Entered: 05/25/1993)	PACER
	May 24, 1993	Motion hearing set at 2:00 6/1/93 on motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood for Failure to Maintain her Eligibility for Admission [50-1] (fe)
52	May 28, 1993	Order granting motion for leave to file limited response to defendants' reply memorandum in support of a motion for protective order and discovery conference [23-1] (fe) (Entered: 06/01/1993)	RECAP
53	May 28, 1993	Limited Response by Cheryl J. Hopwood response [19-1] (defendants' reply memorandum in support of a motion for protective order and discovery conference). (fe) (Entered: 06/01/1993)	RECAP
54	May 28, 1993	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood for (Michael P. McDonald) to appear pro hac vice (fe) (Entered: 06/01/1993)	RECAP
55	May 28, 1993	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood for (Joseph A. Shea, Jr.) to appear pro hac vice (fe) (Entered: 06/01/1993)	RECAP
56	May 28, 1993	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood to continue the oral argument set for June 1, 1993 (fe) (Entered: 06/01/1993)	RECAP
	May 28, 1993	Mooted motions motion to extend time in which to take depostions of Law School Admissions Committee Members [25−1] (fe) (Entered: 06/01/1993)	PACER
	May 28, 1993	Mooted motions motion to extend time in which to take depostions of Law School Admissions Committee Members [25-1] (fe)
57	June 1, 1993	Condiitional Response by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents in opposition to motion to continue the oral argument set for June 1, 1993 [56-1], motion for (Joseph A. Shea, Jr.) to appear pro hac vice [55-1], motion for (Michael P. McDonald) to appear pro hac vice [54-1] (fe) (Entered: 06/03/1993)	RECAP
	June 1, 1993	Motion hearing held for motion to continue the oral argument set for June 1, 1993 [56−1], held for motion for (Joseph A. Shea, Jr.) to appear pro hac vice [55−1], held for motion for (Michael P. McDonald) to appear pro hac vice [54−1], held for motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood for Failure to Maintain her Eligibility for Admission [50−1] (fe) (Entered: 06/03/1993)	PACER
	June 1, 1993	Motion hearing held for motion to continue the oral argument set for June 1, 1993 [56-1], held for motion for (Joseph A. Shea, Jr.) to appear pro hac vice [55-1], held for motion for (Michael P. McDonald) to appear pro hac vice [54-1], held for motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood for Failure to Maintain her Eligibility for Admission [50-1] (fe)
58	June 2, 1993	Order denying motion to continue the oral argument set for June 1, 1993 [56-1] (fe) (Entered: 06/04/1993)	RECAP
59	June 3, 1993	Order, regarding the motion hearing on 6/1/93 motion filing deadline 8/16/93 (fe) (Entered: 06/09/1993)	RECAP
60	July 20, 1993	Notice of attorney appearance for Cheryl J. Hopwood by Terral Ray Smith (fe) (Entered: 07/20/1993)	RECAP
61	Aug. 13, 1993	Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents for summary judgment on the issue of standing (fe) (Entered: 08/17/1993)	RECAP
62	Aug. 13, 1993	Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents for summary judgment on the issue of ripeness (fe) (Entered: 08/17/1993)	RECAP
63	Aug. 13, 1993	Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents for leave to file brief in excess of twenty pages (fe) Modified on 03/08/1994 (Entered: 08/17/1993)	RECAP
64	Aug. 19, 1993	Motion by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents to compel (fe) (Entered: 08/20/1993)	RECAP
65	Aug. 25, 1993	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood to extend time to respond to motions for summary judgment on the issue of standing and on the issue of ripeness (fe) (Entered: 08/31/1993)	RECAP
66	Sept. 1, 1993	Order granting motion to extend time to respond to motions for summary judgment on the issue of standing and on the issue of ripeness [65-1] Plaintiffs have until September 15, 1993 to respond. (fe) (Entered: 09/03/1993)	RECAP
67	Sept. 1, 1993	Order, docket call 8:30 10/25/93 a trial date for sometime in November will be set at the docket call (fe) (Entered: 09/03/1993)	RECAP
	Sept. 1, 1993	Jury selection set at 10:00 10/25/93 (fe) (Entered: 09/03/1993)	PACER
	Sept. 1, 1993	Jury selection set at 10:00 10/25/93 (fe)
68	Sept. 3, 1993	Response by Cheryl J. Hopwood motion to compel [64-1] (fe) (Entered: 09/09/1993)	RECAP
69	Sept. 16, 1993	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood to extend time for one day within which to file plaintiffs' responbsive documents (fe) (Entered: 09/20/1993)	RECAP
70	Sept. 16, 1993	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood for leave to file brief in excess of 20 pages (fe) Modified on 09/20/1993 (Entered: 09/20/1993)	RECAP
71	Sept. 16, 1993	Response by Cheryl J. Hopwood motion for summary judgment on the issue of ripeness [62-1] (fe) (Entered: 09/21/1993)	RECAP
72	Sept. 16, 1993	Certificate of service on documents 69-71. (fe) (Entered: 09/21/1993)	RECAP
73	Sept. 22, 1993	Order granting motion to extend time for one day within which to file plaintiffs' responbsive documents [69-1] (fe) Modified on 10/28/1993 (Entered: 09/24/1993)	RECAP
74	Sept. 24, 1993	Reply by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents to response to motion for summary judgment on the issue of standing [61-1] (fe) (Entered: 09/28/1993)	RECAP
75	Sept. 24, 1993	Reply by State of Texas, Bd. of Regents to response to motion for summary judgment on the issue of ripeness [62-1] (fe) (Entered: 09/28/1993)	RECAP
76	Sept. 24, 1993	Defendants' proposed summary of facts fo record and conclusions of law. (fe) (Entered: 09/28/1993)	RECAP
77	Sept. 24, 1993	Certificate of service on documents 74-76. (fe) (Entered: 09/28/1993)	RECAP
78	Sept. 29, 1993	Order, set motion hearing on motion for summary judgment on the issue of standing [61-1] for 9:00 10/22/93 (fe) (Entered: 09/30/1993)	RECAP
79	Oct. 4, 1993	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood to consolidate cases with A-93-CA-210, to dismiss certain plaintiffs, to waive jury, to clarify discovery schedule (fe) (Entered: 10/05/1993)	RECAP
80	Oct. 4, 1993	Order, set motion hearing on motion for summary judgment on the issue of standing [61-1] for 4:00 10/21/93 (fe) (Entered: 10/05/1993)	RECAP
81	Oct. 5, 1993	Notice of Change of Address for Steven W. Smith (copy forwarded to San Antonio) (fe) (Entered: 10/06/1993)	RECAP
82	Oct. 12, 1993	Order granting motion to consolidate cases with A-93-CA-210 [79-1] A-92-CA-563 will be the lead case. (fe) (Entered: 10/13/1993)	RECAP
	Oct. 12, 1993	Mooted motions motion to dismiss certain plaintiffs [79−2], motion to waive jury [79−3], motion to clarify discovery schedule [79−4] Per order signed on October 12, 1993. (fe) Modified on 03/24/1994 (Entered: 03/24/1994)	PACER
	Oct. 12, 1993	Mooted motions motion to dismiss certain plaintiffs [79-2], motion to waive jury [79-3], motion to clarify discovery schedule [79-4] Per order signed on October 12, 1993. (fe) Modified on 03/24/1994
83	Oct. 20, 1993	Motion by Cheryl J. Hopwood to compel discovery (fe) (Entered: 10/22/1993)	RECAP
	Oct. 21, 1993	Motion hearing held for motion for summary judgment on the issue of standing [61−1] (fe) (Entered: 10/22/1993)	PACER
	Oct. 21, 1993	Motion hearing held for motion for summary judgment on the issue of standing [61-1] (fe)
84	Oct. 27, 1993	Plaintiffs' Memorandum on Discovery Requests. (fe) (Entered: 10/28/1993)	RECAP
85	Oct. 28, 1993	Memorandum Opinion and Order denying motion for summary judgment on the issue of ripeness [62-1], denying motion for summary judgment on the issue of standing [61-1], denying motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood for Failure to Maintain her Eligibility for Admission [50-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/29/1993)	RECAP

Case: Hopwood v. Texas

1:92-cv-00563 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Docket for: Hopwood v. State of Texas

Case Details