There’s a perception in some appellate circles that if the court of appeals has issued a “memorandum opinion,” the chances of getting review by the Supreme Court of Texas are minuscule. A look at the supreme court’s statistics might change a few minds.
Continue Reading The Texas Supreme Court’s Docket, Part 3
The Texas Supreme Court’s Docket, Part 2
Each calendar year, the Supreme Court of Texas agrees to hear and decide somewhere around 80 petitions for review. This is only a fraction of the petitions for review that come knocking on the court’s door. When the court grants a petition for review the odds are very strong that the court is going to reverse the court of appeals judgment. Overall reversal rates range between 75% to 85% for the years 2014 through 2017, with the average reversal rate for all four years being 82.2%.
Continue Reading The Texas Supreme Court’s Docket, Part 2
The Texas Supreme Court’s Docket, Part 1
For well over a decade, the Supreme Court of Texas has been presented with more than 1000 different matters each fiscal year. These matters consist of petitions for review, petitions for writs of mandamus, certified questions, petitions for habeas corpus, direct appeals, and a handful of other miscellaneous items. The bulk of the court’s docket consists of petitions for review, which are either denied or granted.
Continue Reading The Texas Supreme Court’s Docket, Part 1
Does Texas follow the “sham affidavit” doctrine?
A “sham affidavit” has been described as referring to an affidavit in which an affiant offers sworn testimony that contradicts the affiant’s prior, sworn testimony on a material point and the affiant gives no explanation in the affidavit for the change in the testimony. The scenario of the “sham affidavit” arises with great frequency in Texas summary judgment practice. Because many district courts and intermediate appellate courts refuse to give credence to such an affidavit, many motions for summary judgment have been granted and upheld.
Continue Reading Does Texas follow the “sham affidavit” doctrine?
How soon must an attorney notify his client of a court filing?
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