Reverse and Render : Texas Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : Cowles & Thompson Law Firm : Court of Appeals, Texas Supreme Court

The Chief Justice of New York's highest court, Jonathan Lippman, is receiving accolades from his announcement this week that the Administrative Board of Courts has proposed a new rule to address when judges must recuse themselves when those appearing before them have contributed money to their campaigns.  The proposed rule was announced as part of Chief Judge Lippman's annual state of the judiciary address, and it is designed to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court's Caperton v. Massey Coal decision and the public perception of impropriety that is created by judicial contributions made by parties and their attorneys to judicial campaigns.

The proposed rule requires recusal when a party or an attorney has contributed $2500 or more individually (or $3500 or more collectively by multiple plaintiffs or defendants, or by an attorney and his or her law firm) within two years of the judge being assigned to the case.  The text of the proposed rule may be found here.  The rule is open for public comment until April 29, 2011. 

The consensus on the legal blogs I've read seems to be that this is (and should have been) a "no-brainer".  I haven't seen which direction Texas is headed on this issue, but reading about this New York rule reminds me of the 60 Minutes episode that aired in the 1987-ish time-frame asking the question of whether justice is for sale.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Once again, a court of appeals has weighed in on the question of calculating net worth for purposes of supersedeas.  The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to include the judgment as a liability in calculating the judgment debtor's net worth.  The court relied on the fact that there was expert testimony that the judgment should not be included under generally accepted accounting principles.  Noting the standard of review was abuse of discretion, the court of appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the judgment from the net worth calculation because evidence was presented that supported the trial court's ruling.  The opinion does not answer the question of whether a trial court has discretion to include the judgment amount as a liability.  It seems the answer turns on the evidence presented to the trial court.  The court of appeals' opinion in Anderton v. Cawley can be found here.     

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We have a pair of starkly conflicting opinions recently issued by the Dallas Court of Appeals in the arena of Health Care Liability claims to report.  In one, the court applies the well-settled principle that a plaintiff's pleadings do not determine whether a claim is a health care liability claim and the court applies the Texas Supreme Court's analysis in Marks v. St. Lukes Episcopal Hospital to the legal determination of whether the claim is a health care liability claim.  In the second case, the court does not mention the Marks test, and holds that the plaintiff's pleadings do determine whether a claim is a health care liability claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Parties seeking to appeal from an adverse judgment should be wary of requesting or otherwise approving the very judgment they intend to appeal.  In Sincerely Yours LP v. NCI Building Systems LP, Sincerely Yours obtained a favorable verdict on liability but wanted to appeal the exclusion of certain testimony relating to the extent of its damages.  After the verdict, Sincerely Yours moved for judgment and approved a proposed final judgment as to "form and substance."   Sincerely Yours later perfected an appeal to complain of the exclusion of the damages testimony. 

The Amarillo Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in reliance upon well-settled authority that a party waives its right to appeal by moving for judgment without expressly indicating somewhere in the motion that it reserves the right to complain of the judgment on appeal.   Sincerely Yours should have indicated that it agreed to the form of the judgment only and that it disagreed with the result and reserved the right to appeal.  In dismissing the appeal, the court of appeals rejected Sincerely Yours' argument that it had made the trial court aware of its intent to appeal by filing a motion for new trial.  The court of appeals held that the waiver occurred previously--when the motion for judgment was filed.  The court's opinion may be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Dallas Bar Association Appellate Section has announcd a program change for the February meeting to be held this Thursday, February 17th.  Dana Livingston from Alexander Dubose & Townsend will present "Panel Roulette: What Fractured Fifth Circuit Opinions Teach Us About the Court's Judges" at the meeting this Thursday. 

Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson was originally scheduled to speak at the February meeting.  The Chief Justice's presentation on the "State of the Texas Supreme Court" has been rescheduled for the April 21st meeting.

One hour of CLE is available.  The meeting will be held in the Haynes and Boone Room at the Belo Mansion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We at reverseandrender.com mourn the passing of former Chief Justice Joe R. Greenhill, who served on the Texas Supreme Court for 25 years.  The press release from the Texas Supreme Court announcing Justice Greenhill's death may be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Here are a couple of Continuing Education opportunities for appellate practitioners:

On Thursday, February 17th at Noon, Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson will speak to theDallas Bar Association Appellate Law Section on the "State of the Texas Supreme Court."  The event will take place at the Belo Mansion as part of the the Appellate Law Section's monthly lunch seminars and has been approved for 1 hour of CLE credit.

On Friday, April 15th, the Appellate Section of the State Bar of Texas will host an all-day seminar at the Sheraton Austin Hotel.  The event will include current Texas Supreme Court Justices Eva Guzman, Don Willett, Debra Lehrmann, and Nathan Hecht.  In addition, other speakers include prominent appellate practitioners from across the state and Texas Supreme Court Clerk Blake Hawthorne.  The seminar offers 6.75 hours of CLE credit.  A registration brochure is available at this link.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link