I had the privilege and pleasure of speaking to the Dallas Bar Association Appellate Law Section on the subject of superseding judgments in Texas state courts. In connection with that continuing legal education presentation, I prepared a written paper and a powerpoint presentation. I am making those resources publicly available here:
Opinions & Judgments
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:
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?
Supreme Court Limits Forum Shopping in Patent Cases
In a closely-watched case, the Supreme Court greatly narrowed venue for patent cases. The ruling will limit forum shopping and greatly reduce the number of cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas, which is perceived as the most favorable district for plaintiffs bringing patent claims.
In recent years as many as much as 30-40%…
Whose Right is it Anyway? Unconstitutional Speaker Discrimination in Texas’ Anti-SLAPP Scheme
Freedom of speech and thought lie at the core of liberty. Though many philosophers, statesmen, and legal practitioners have opined on the value of free speech and thought, Justice Louis Brandies best captured the value of free speech and thought in our constitutional scheme:
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of…
The Interplay Between Federal Rule 56 and Daubert
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion in Operaciones Tecnicas Marinas, SAS v. Diversified Marine Services, LLC illustrates the interplay between the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56—the summary judgment rule—and the requirements of Daubert case law that an expert adequately exclude alternative causes.
Diversified Marine Services, LLC (Diversified) was called upon to…
The Impact of Medical Lien Funding on Past Medical Expenses “Actually Paid or Incurred”
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.0105 limits recoveries of medical care expenses by an injured claimant to those expenses actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of the claimant. A number of appellate decisions have addressed what this paid-or-incurred language means in different contexts. The opinion in Katy Springs Manufacturing, Inc.
The Texas Supreme Court Adopts a “Factual Plausibility” Pleading Standard
Did the Texas Supreme Court substitute fair notice pleading for well-pleaded complaints? Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a was adopted in 2013, and provides a “no reasonable person could believe” standard. Until recently, whether “no reasonable person could believe” meant “plausibility” remained an unanswered question. In City of Dallas v. Sanchez, No. 15-0094 (July 1,…
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…