The answer to this question may depend upon the circumstances. As reflected in one recent Dallas Court of Appeals opinion, minutes mattered in order for the lawyer to ensure compliance with her obligation not to engage in conduct that might disrupt pending appellate proceedings. This opinion could serve as a good law school exam question.
Continue Reading How soon must an attorney notify his client of a court filing?
Personal jurisdiction found over corporate parent without veil-piercing
Ordinarily, when evaluating the contacts of distinct legal entities, the contacts of parent corporations and subsidiaries are evaluated separately for jurisdictional purposes, unless the corporate veil is pierced. On first glance, that doesn’t appear to be what happened in Cornerstone Healthcare Group Holding, Inc. v. Nautic Management VI, L.P. The key to understanding this opinion
Mandamus standard over dominant jurisdiction is relaxed
Once upon a time a trial court’s decision on a question of dominant jurisdiction was not subject to mandamus relief unless one court was actively interfering with another court’s exercise of jurisdiction. The Texas Supreme Court has abrogated that standard in favor of the more flexible standard the court adopted in In re Prudential Insurance
Court clerks have a duty to file tendered documents
“A clerk has a ‘mandatory, ministerial duty’ to file all documents submitted for filing,” according to a recent opinion issued by the Dallas Court of Appeals. The court further held that the court, not the clerk, then has the power to decide the propriety of the filing.
Context Matters: personal e-mail addresses of government officials are not protected from disclosure requirements
The Texas Public Information Act is intended to provide the public with a window into the business of government and the official acts of public officials. There are some limited restrictions on the information that may be obtained by a person requesting information. The Austin Court of Appeals’ opinion in The Austin Bulldog vs. Leffingwell
Injunction Law: Back to the Basics
Temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions are governed by some fairly specific requirements. Failure to follow those black-and-white requirements can result in the court’s order being declared void. That’s what happened in Medi-Lynx Monitoring, Inc. v. AMI Monitoring, Inc. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 requires that an order granting a temporary injunction set the
Whistleblowers: Who Ya Gonna Call?
The Texas Whistleblower Act protects a public employee who makes a good faith report of a legal violation by his or her employer “to an appropriate law enforcement authority.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.002(a). Texas law has generally held that the “appropriate law enforcement authority” must be an authority that has outward-looking powers to investigate,
First Amendment Speech vs. State Regulation of Health and Safety
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion addressing First Amendment protections over political speech and First Amendment challenges to the state regulation of psychological services.
In Serafine vs. Branaman, the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists ordered Mary Serafine to stop using the title of “psychologist” on her campaign website
Supersedeas Bonds and Julie Andrews?
Yours truly–Mike Northrup–will be speaking to the Dallas Bar Association Appellate Law Section at noon on September 17, 2015, at the Belo Mansion. The title of the presentation will be “Just a Spoonful of Supersedeas Makes the Judgment go Down.” Drop in and hear the answer to what Julie Andrews and supersedeas bonds
Supersedeas Pendulum Swings Toward Judgment Debtors
The Supreme Court of Texas has clarified the phrase “compensatory damages” as used in the supsersedeas statute (Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 52.006) and Appellate Rule 24. In In re Longview Energy Company, the court held that disgorgement damages are not compensatory damages and therefore need not be superseded to stay enforcement