Texas Appellate Law Blog : Texas Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : Smith Law Group, P.C. : Appeals, Sanctions, Summary Judgment : Austin, Texas

As a follow up to this post on the status of e-filing in the Texas appellate courts, the Third Court of Appeals is now accepting electronic courtesy copies.  The court is also asking (but not requiring) the party responsible for requesting or filing the record and briefs to submit e-copies of such documents on a CD or DVD in searchable PDF format.  For specific guidelines, see the "Electronic Filing" link on the court's web site.

I haven't surveyed the otherintermediate appellate courts, but if they aren't doing thisalready, they certainly should follow the Third Court's lead.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

If you haven't already heard, John Grisham has a new legal thriller out.  It's called The Appeal.  Here's an excerpt from Charles Taylor's review at Bloomberg.com:

[The defendant's] next step, of course, is to appeal the verdict.  Knowing that it will take several years for the case to reach the state Supreme Court, the company decides to buy a seat.  Judges are elected in Mississippi, so they target a victim—a female justice who can be made to sound like a liberal harridan—and groom a decent, conservative young lawyer to run against her.  Then the smear campaign begins.

Sounds a little like an appellate version of The Runaway Jury, with some commentary on judicial elections thrown in.  According to USA Today's review:

More than a novel, The Appeal is an exposé of how highly organized special-interest groups, loaded with cash, can manipulate the judicial system.  It's Grisham's bully pulpit for reform.  "There's a lot of truth in this story," Grisham writes in an author's note.  "As long as private money is allowed in judicial elections we will see competing interests fight for seats on the bench."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

The following chart from the Houston Chronicle depicts how long argued cases have been pending before the Texas Supreme Court and the number of deciding opinions each of the justices wrote in Fiscal Year 2007.  Though intended to expand on recent controversies, it provides some perspective nonetheless.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

The Texas Supreme Court has been productive despite all the recent controversy (WSJ Law Blog coverage here and here), churning out eight decisions with this week's orders.  The cases involved fraud claims, annexation, land titles, improper jury argument, apex depositions, governmental immunity, potential waiver of the right to appeal, and election law.  Osler McCarthy's excellent summaries are available via this link.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Austin appellate lawyer Don Cruse recently launched the Supreme Court of Texas Blog, which is definitely worth checking out if you haven't seen it yet.  Don covers some of the same ground I do, but his focus is narrower and deeper.  I have added a link to his blog under the "Texas Law Blogs" section of my blogroll.  Welcome to the blogosphere, Don.  There's room here for both of us.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

My fellow appellate lawyer Ray Ward (who writes a couple of excellent blogs, the (new) legal writer and Minor Wisdom) asked me to plug the upcoming DRI Appellate Advocacy Seminar, to be held at the J. W. Marriott Orlando, Grande Lakes (that's Florida, folks) on February 28-29, 2008.  Though sponsored by "the voice of the defense bar," the brochure indicates that the seminar will benefit appellate specialists, in-house counsel who supervise appeals, civil trial lawyers, judges and law professors, and appellate court clerks alike.  Ray has posted a sneak peek at the agenda and his accolades for this program here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Texas Supreme Court issued no opinions with this week's orders.  In other Court news, however, Chief Justice Jefferson has issued a statement expressing the Court's dismay concerning Justice Medina's indictment in Harris County in connection with the fire that destroyed his Houston-area home last summer.  Several news outlets have reported that Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal (Justice Medina's fellow Republican, who is having his own well publicized troubles these days) will move to dismiss the indictment.  The political firestorm (no pun intended) has begun.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Attorney General of Texas (No. 03-07-00102-CV), the Third Court of Appeals has agreed with an attorney general opinion that state employees' birth dates are public information subject to disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.  Justice Diane Henson (pictured) wrote the panel opinion (joined by Chief Justice Law and Justice Waldrop) affirming the trial court's summary judgment for the AG.  The appellate court also rejected a request for attorney's fees by The Dallas Morning News, which made the public information request that generated the controversy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I had the privilege of hosting Blawg Review #123 back in August.  As a contributor, I have been asked to nominate other issues for Blawg Review of the Year.  My nominations are:

• Blawg Review #110, a special Memorial Day commemoration from Biker Law Blogger Norman Gregory Fernandez.
• Blawg Review #118, a side-splitting issue with business law humorist Blawgletter, a/k/a Barry Barnett.
• Blawg Review #125, Kevin O'Keefe's review of lessons on how and why we should blog at Real Lawyers Have Blogs.
• Blawg Review # 132, in which Home Office Lawyer and blogging master Grant Griffiths collects a number of posts related to solo practice.

Thanks to Brett Trout for nominating my humble submission.  And while the blog carnival is on your mind, be sure to check out Blawg Review #142, an open letter to a new lawyer by Susan Cartier Liebel, solo practice consultant extraordinaire.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Texas Supreme Court released four opinions with this week's orders:

In PAJ, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance Co. (No. 05-0849), a five-member majority (Justice O'Neill, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson and Justices Brister, Medina, and Green) held that an insured's failure to timely notify its insurer of a claim does not defeat coverage if the delay caused the insurer no prejudice.  In doing so, the Court treated the policy's prompt-notice requirement as a covenant, rather than a condition precedent.  Justice Willett dissented (joined by Justices Hecht, Wainwright and Johnson) and would have reached the opposite conclusion.

In Houser v. McElveen (No. 06-0504) (per curiam), the Court determined that an inmate who deposited his notice of appeal in the prison mail 35 days after the trial court signed a dismissal order was entitled to an extension of time.  Thus, the court of appeals erred by dismissing the inmate's appeal.

In Levine v. Shackelford, Melton & McKinley, L.L.P. (No. 06-0553) (per curiam) (opinion on denial of rehearing from petition for review), the Court emphasized that "conscious indifference" is not the same as negligence when applying the test for setting aside a no-answer default judgment.

In AIG Aviation (Texas), Inc. v. Holt Helicopters (No. 06-0484) (dissent from denial of rehearing of petition for review) Justice Willett indicated that he would have granted review to overrule Puckett v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co., 678 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. 1984), distinguish it, or "explain forthrightly why we insist on applying a hazy, public policy-based interpretive standard to aviation insurance contracts . . . ."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In this post from last summer, I mentioned reverse contingent fees as a potential means of compensating appellate counsel.  Spurred by a question I asked in response to one of his recent posts, Blawgletter (a/k/a Susman Godfrey's Barry Barnett) expounded on how his firm approaches reverse contingent fees in business litigation matters.  The methodology would depend on the case, its procedural posture, and the client's financial well being/creditworthiness, but the basic idea is to assign a dollar value to the client's exposure and base the fee on the "savings" obtained by the result.  With reports of $1,000 hourly rates and in-house counsel under increasing pressure to rein in outside lawyer fees, we may see more of this approach in the future, especially from solos and small firms who have the flexibility to implement it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Texas Supreme Court issued its first decision of 2008 with today's orders.  In In re Brookshire Grocery Co. (No. 05-0300), the Court held that a motion for new trial filed within 30 days of judgment, but after a preceding motion for new trial had been overruled, did not extend the trial court's plenary power under TRCP 329b.  The Court based its decision on language in the rule allowing an amended motion to be filed without leave of court when no preceding motion for new trial has been overruled and the amended motion is filed within 30 days of the judgment.  Chief Justice Jefferson's majority opinion (in which Justices O'Neill, Medina, Johnson, and Willett joined) also relies on the rule's history and purpose.

The trial court denied Brookshire's first motion for new trial and signed a judgment conforming to the jury's verdict.  More than 30 days after signing the judgment, the trial courtattempted to grant Brookshire's second motion for new trial, which was filed within 30 days of the judgment but after the first motion was overruled.  Under these facts, the supreme court concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial and agreed with the court of appeals' decision to order mandamus relief.

Justice Hecht (joined by Justices Wainwright, Brister, and Green) dissented.  The dissenting justices would have held that the second motion extended the plenary period, and thus would have allowed the trial court to rescind its judgment in favor of a new trial.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

It's hard to believe, but I launched this blog one year ago today.  I have enjoyed writing the first 187 posts and interacting with readers, both through the blog and in person.  Your comments and compliments help keep this thing going.

I have big plans for the blog in early 2008, so keep your eyes open for some major changes.  Here's to a happy, safe, and productive 2008!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)