Early last year, I wrote about the split among the Texas courts of appeals on whether mandamus relief is available to challenge a trial court’s ruling striking a Section 18.001 counteraffidavit. Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 18.001 counteraffidavits are used by defendants to contest the reasonableness and necessity of a claimant’s affidavit proof of
Personal Jurisdiction Gets a Makeover
Whether a defendant can be sued in the courts of a particular state depends upon the defendant’s presence in the state. If the defendant lives there, or in the case of an entity, has its principal place of business there or is incorporated there, the defendant has availed itself of the state’s jurisdiction and may
Texas Anti-Discrimination Protection Held to Include Sexual Orientation
The Dallas Court of Appeals has held that the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and its prohibition against unlawful employment practices because of sex, encompasses claims for unlawful employment practices because of sexual orientation. This interpretation is the first for an appellate court in Texas and the court’s analysis follows the United States
Review of Opinions and Memorandum Opinions in 2020
Last year, I reported that the Texas Supreme Court granted a record number of petitions for review in cases where the court of appeals had issued an opinion designated as a “Memorandum Opinion.” The statistics seem to dispel the notion that there is an inherent bias against review of “Memorandum Opinions.
In 2020, the number
Texas Supreme Court statistics for 2020
This past year presented some unique challenges for the judiciary, and specifically for the Supreme Court of Texas. The court confronted a pandemic, a ransomeware attack, and some unusual election-year court filings. In spite of these challenges, the court persevered and performed. Here’s what my initial calculations show:
- During the 2020 calendar year, the court
Authenticating Public Records
Cases involving questions on the admissibility of evidence rarely rise to the level of importance that the Texas Supreme Court gets involved. Yet these questions routinely arise in the trial courts and are fundamental to trial practice. The Texas Supreme Court recently examined an evidence question involving the admissibility of public records.
In Fleming v.
Superseding Prejudgment Interest
At a recent continuing education seminar, one of the presenters stated as a fact that amounts awarded in a judgment for prejudgment interest do not need to be included in the amount of a supersedeas bond. The presenter cited the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Nalle Plastics Family Ltd. Partnership, 406 S.W.3d
What is Important to the State’s Jurisprudence?
Two years ago, I noted that the data shows that the Texas Supreme Court grants a disproportionate number of petitions for review that come through certain intermediate appellate courts. One of those intermediate appellate courts is the Third Court of Appeals District, informally known as the Austin Court of Appeals. That trend continues.
Focusing on
Texas Supreme Court Jurisdiction over Granted Petitions
The Supreme Court of Texas handed down an opinion in Regent Care of San Antonio, L.P. v. Detrick in early May. The main holding in the case addresses the application of a settlement credit. But one short paragraph at the end of the opinion has appellate practitioners talking.
The paragraph in question states:
“Regent Care
“Opinions,” “Memorandum Opinions,” and Texas Supreme Court Review
For many years after the Texas Supreme Court adopted rules that divided the opinions issued by the intermediate courts of appeals into “opinions” and “memorandum opinions,” many appellate practitioners privately concluded that if an opinion was designated “memorandum opinion,” the chances of getting Texas Supreme Court review were substantially reduced. But in 2018, I reported