Texas Supreme Court Orders & Opinions 6/12/09

The Texas Supreme Court released two new opinions with this week's regular orders, both of which involved petitions for writ of mandamus.

In In re Hall (No. 07-0322), the Court held that an indigent adult who had been adjudicated delinquent as a minor and received a 40-year sentence had no statutory right under the Juvenile Justice Code to appointed counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding.  The Court did not decide the case based on the offender's age, but instead relied on statutory language limiting the right to appointed habeas counsel to situations in which "the legality of detention" has been challenged.  Because the Court determined that "detention" means "pre-adjudication confinement of the child, not the post-adjudication commitment at issue here," it denied mandamus relief.

Aside from its outcome, Hall is significant because the relator received assistance in the supreme court through the State Bar Appellate Section's Pro Bono Pilot Program.  The Texas Bar Journal recently published an article covering that program, and I have previously discussed it here.

In In re International Profit Associates, Inc. (No. 08-0531) (per curiam), the Court granted mandamus relief from a trial court's order refusing to dismiss a lawsuit in favor of arbitration.  As a condition of enforcing a forum-selection clause in the parties' contract, the trial court had required the movant to prove that it pointed the clause out to to the plaintiff when they made the agreement.  The supreme court determined that the order improperly shifted the burden of proof, which lies with the party opposing a forum-selection clause, and thus abused its discretion.

More Recusal Motions Coming in Texas Appeals

This morning's release of the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (No. 08-22) could open the door to more recusal motions in Texas appellate courts (and possibly trial courts).

In Caperton, the Court held that due process required a West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals justice to recuse himself from a case in which his largest single campaign contributor was a party.  The story reads much like John Grisham's The Appeal (discussed here and here) in which a litigant set out to purchase a state supreme court seat to swing the necessary votes its way.

Texas also elects its judiciary, and the issue of judicial campaign finance is an ongoing source of controversy.  I'll leave more detailed analysis of Caperton to the SCOTUS pundits, but it is difficult to imagine that this decision won't have a significant trickle-down effect.

Update:  Don Cruse has reviewed the case in more detail over at The Supreme Court of Texas Blog.

Spring Appellate Advocate Now Available

The Spring issue of The Appellate Advocate has been posted to the Appellate Section's website.  In addition to the usual features, this issue contains announcements seeking applications for the position of editor (due June 30) and entries for the Section's annual songwriting contest (due August 15).  See the publication for details.

Mail Distribution of Winter Appellate Advocate

Because of a communication error between the State Bar and printer, a significant number of Appellate Section members did not receive hard copies of the Winter Appellate Advocate (vol. 21, no. 2) in the mail.

The issue is available electronically here.  Section members wishing to obtain a print version may send a request to the printer's representative, Tina Adams, at tina@theovernightpress.com.

As editor of the publication, and on behalf of the Appellate Section, I apologize for the inconvenience.

Extensions of Time in the Fifth Circuit

Let's be honest.  Most state-court appellate practitioners find the Fifth Circuit a little byzantine.  But one thing the Fifth Circuit does right is allow the clerk's office to grant short unopposed briefing extensions—up to 15 days—over the telephone.  The circuit court has even done away with the requirement that the requesting counsel send a confirmation letter to the clerk, with a copy to all parties.

Briefing extensions are pretty easy to come by in state appellate courts, but they're not just a phone call away.  I can think of one or two other federal rules that the Texas Supreme Court ought to consider emulating when considering future rules changes.  For example, why not adopt some variation of FRAP 28.1 to deal with cross-appeals?

Texas Supreme Court Orders 3/20/09

Not surprisingly, the Texas Supreme Court released no new opinions with its Spring Break week orders.

Texas Supreme Court Orders 3/13/09

The Texas Supreme Court issued no new opinions with this week's regular orders.

The upcoming week is Spring Break in and around Austin.  The Court next meets in conference on March 23 & 24.

Appellate Advocate News

Following up on this post, I am pleased to announce that Hein Online has finished archiving past volumes of The Appellate Advocate.  The 1987 inaugural issue through volume 20, number 4 are now available by following the "Appellate Advocate" button and the "Archives" link on the State Bar Appellate Section's website.

The newly posted current issue is available on the Section's website as well.  In addition to the regular case summaries, it features Texas Solicitor General Jim Ho's essay in honor of his office's tenth anniversary and Justice Terrie Livingston's interview of now-retired Justice Dixon Holman.  As a special treat, we have also included some of David Mills's excellent Courtoons.

I have had the privilege of serving as the publication's editor for nearly three years, and my time in that role is drawing to a close.  Watch for an announcement in the Spring issue seeking applications for my replacement.

Texas Supreme Court Orders & Opinion 3/6/09

The Texas Supreme Court released one new opinion with today's regular orders.

In Phillips v. Bramlett (No. 07-0522), the Court considered the relationship between (1) former Article 4590i's cap limiting physicians' (and other health care providers') liability to $500,000, adjusted for inflation (Section 11.02(a)); and (2) the exception to this cap that applies when the doctor's insurer has negligently failed to settle under the Stowers doctrine (Section 11.02(c)).  Concluding that a judgment against a physician must conform to the cap, the Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment allowing an excess recovery.

The Court explained that, when malpractice insurance coverage falls below the cap, the doctor and injured patient may share the Stowers-exception claim if the damages finding exceeds the capped amount.  When coverage exceeds the cap, however, the physician is fully protected, and only the injured patient has incentive to pursue the Stowers exception.  In either case, the Stowers claim must be brought separately from the negligence action.

Justice O'Neill (joined by Chief Justice Jefferson and Justices Hecht, and Green) dissented.

What I've Been Doing Lately

Well, we know what I've not been doing much of lately—blogging.

Since my last entry, I have helped with a jury trial here in Travis County, immersed myself in a complex adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court that's set for a two-week trial later this month, done some things to get ready for the official opening of Solo Practice University, prepared for an Inn of Court CLE presentation, and signed up a couple of new appeals.

Ironically, blogging has brought attention even without doing it, as I recently taught a teleseminar at Legal Research and Writing Pro entitled "How to Market an Appellate or Contract Lawyering Practice Using Blogging and Social Media" and gave an interview for a LexBlog Q&A post.

Meanwhile, I've missed commenting on three sets of Texas Supreme Court orders (2/13/09, 2/20/09, and 2/27/09, with opinion summaries here and here) and some other noteworthy developments.  As I said in the LexBlog interview, I enjoy blogging for the sake of blogging, aside from the other reasons I do it.  I hope to be back to a more regular schedule soon.