New Provo Canyon is the same entity as Old Provo Canyon or even its legal successor. As we reject Taylor’s judicial notice claim, though, we do not reach the question whether a state actor determination as to Old Provo Canyon would apply to New Provo Canyon even if the district court were to take judicial notice of the prior determination of Old Provo Canyon's state actor status. 5 . The jury found Taylor's mother 75% at fault for Taylor's damages. 6 . Eugene v. Alief Indep. Sch. Dist., 65 F.3d 1299, 1303 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1191, 116 S.Ct. 1680, 134 L.Ed.2d 782 (1996). 7 . C.A. Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 681 F.2d 334, 337 (5th Cir.1982). 8 . Fed. R. Ev. 201(b). 9 . Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc., 969 F.2d 1384, 1388-89 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Holloway v. A.L. Lockhart, 813 F.2d 874,
recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket holding district court could not properly take judicial notice of findings of another court establishing nature of salary dispute in question recognizing that courts routinely take judicial notice of documents filed in other courts holding district court could not take judicial notice of finding of another court that use of tear gas was reasonable and necessary holding district court could not take judicial notice of bankruptcy courts finding that sellers had provided notice required to preserve their trust rights and were cash sellers