In 2007, the Texas Legislature adopted a Certificate of Merit requirement applicable to claims against architects and engineers. The statutory requirement is much like the expert affidavit requirement applicable to health care liability claims. The Houston First District Court of Appeals has given us an idea of just how broadly the statute should be interpreted.
Mandamus Granted Over Denial of Special Exception
Here’s one to put in your mandamus file. The Dallas Court of Appeals has held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a special exception and that the relators had no adequate remedy by appeal. Of course, there’s more to this holding than meets the eye.
This is a sharolder derivative suit governed
Appellate Continuing Education in Dallas
What could be better than the State Fair of Texas? How about the Dallas/Fort Worth Joint Appellate Seminar? Okay, maybe not, but this continuing education opportunity will give you a chance to hear from the staff attorneys at the Dallas Court of Appeals and theFort Worth Court of Appeals. You can learn
Conference Requirements and Consideration of Lesser Sanctions
After Union Carbide served a treating physician with a subpoena duces tecum that encompassed records spanning over 30 years, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for sanctions, asserting that the discovery requests were overbroad, harassing, and annoying, and he sought costs expended in defending against the subpoena duces tecum. Union Carbide first learned of the motion
Fifth Circuit Exception to Locality Rule for Attorney’s Fees
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that when it becomes necessary to secure out-of-district counsel to adequately represent a civil rights plaintiff, the prevailing rates charged by that firm are the starting point for the lodestar calculation for an award of attorney’s fees. This ruling is an exception to the usual rule that
Federal Appellate Jurisdiction Over Magistrate Orders
A federal court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over an appeal from a magistrate judge’s order of dismissal unless the parties have clearly and unambiguously consented to proceed before the magistrate judge.
In Barber v. Shinseki, the plaintiff brought a healthcare liability claim. After the plaintiff’s counsel withdrew, he asked the district court to appoint
Laser Hair Removal is not a Health Care Liability Claim
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently joined with the Fort Worth Court of Appeals and theCorpus Christi Court of Appeals in holding that a claim arising from a laser hair removal procedure is not a Health Care Liability Claim subject to Chapter 74 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Two other appellate courts–the
“Arising out of” = “Resulting from”
My insurance coverage friends will appreciate this one: The Texas Supreme Court has held that there is "no significant distinction" between an automobile insurance policy that provide coverage for bodily injury "arising out of" ownership, maintenance or use of a covered auto and a policy that provides coverage for bodily injury "resulting from" ownership, maintenance
Experts in Class Actions Subject to Daubert
A lot has already been written about the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes opinion decided this week, but there’s one little ditty that class action practitioners will want to take note of.
As part of their motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs used an expert who conducted a social framework analysis of the culture and
Wrongful Termination of Employee for Voting
Everybody knows that your employer has to give you time to go vote, right? What if your employer doesn’t give you the time to vote, and you take it anyway and are fired because of it? Is there a private cause of action for wrongful termination? According to the Dallas Court of Appeals, the answer is "no."Continue Reading Wrongful Termination of Employee for Voting