The Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)—that determining whether an appellate remedy is “adequate” requires a balancing of the benefits and detriments of mandamus review and is not an abstract or formulaic determination—seems to have caused a split among the
Jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) gives federal courts jurisdiction of class actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million. The U.S. Supreme Court considered the question of whether a named class representative can avoid application of CAFA by stipulating that he will not seek damages that exceed $5 million in Standard Fire Ins.
No Mandamus against a JP
The Amarillo Court of Appeals dismissed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against a justice of the peace because a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a justice of the peace.
In In re Smith, the relators sought a writ of mandamus against a justice of
Texas District Courts Lack Jurisdiction to Grant Divorces to Same-Sex Couples
The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s order denying a plea to the jurisdiction that had been filed by the Texas attorney general, who had intervened in the proceeding for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction. The court of appeals held that Texas district courts lack jurisdiction to grant divorces to same-sex couples legally married in
Judicial versus clerical error
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently discussed the difference between judicial errors and clerical errors and highlighted why it’s so very important to pay attention to the language in orders and judgments.
In In the Interest of N.E., D.E., & M.E., the trial court rendered a final judgment with a Mother Hubbard clause. The
Mandamus to prevent exercise of jurisdiction where there is none
Appellate practitioners know that winning an appeal is not always the end of litigation. Sometimes it’s just a new beginning of disputes, as my blog entry regarding the Supreme Court’s opinion in the In re Columbia Medical Center case indicates. But other times, it really is supposed to be the end. What happens if the trial judge doesn’t see it that way?
Last month, I blogged about a case called In re Victor Enterprises, Inc., in which the Dallas Court of Appeals granted a petition for writ of mandamus against Dallas County Court at Law No. 1 after the judge of that court granted a petition for writ of mandamus without requesting a response from the Relator, Victor Enterprises. The court of appeals held that such an act was clear error and granted mandamus. Now there’s more to the story…Continue Reading Mandamus to prevent exercise of jurisdiction where there is none
Targeting Mandamus
The Amarillo Court of Appeals recently issue an opinion in In re Lagaite, in which the Court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner complained of medical treatment he received while incarcerated in a Texas prison and evidently named the medical doctor as the respondent. Noting that Texas
Surety Bonds vs. Cash Deposits
The Houston (First) Court of Appeals recently issued an interesting opinion regarding perfection of an appeal from a small claims court to a county court at law. The appellant failed to timely file an appeal bond within ten days of the judgment pursuant to to TRCP 571. Instead, the appellant "deposited $5,000 in cash .
Late Notice of the Judgment
When a party (or the party’s attorney) does not receive actual notice of an adverse judgment within 90 days of that judgment, the party may make use of Texas Civil Procedure Rule 306a to extend deadlines for filing a motion for new trial or to appeal. But its important that the party invoking Rule 306a
Personal Jurisdiction and the Fidiciary Shield Doctrine
The Dallas Court of Appeals has added another opinion to the stack of authority recognizing and applying the corporate fiduciary shield doctrine. In Nichols v. Lin, Nichols brought suit for breach of contract against Tseng Lin, YJ USA, and others. Nichols sought to hold Lin responsible for the breach on a theory of alter