Texas Supreme Court Orders & Opinions 5/16/08
The Texas Supreme Court decided six cases and issued one substituted opinion with this week's orders. Briefly, the new decisions are:
- First American Title Insurance Co. v. Combs (No. 05-0541), affirming the Comptroller's interpretation of a retaliatory tax statute affecting foreign insurers.
- In re McAllen Medical Center (No. 05-0892) (orig. proceeding), holding that appellate courts may review the adequacy of expert reports required by the Medical Liability Act when the statute's purposes would otherwise be defeated. The Court conditionally granted the writ and ordered the trial court to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against the hospital.
- Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (No. 06-0873), deciding a state water authority's easement rights involving a lake.
- In re Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (No. 06-0886) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam), concluding that removing a case to federal court before filing an answer did not waive the defendants' right to arbitration. Compare Perry Homes v. Cull (No. 05-0882), previously discussed here.
- Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff's Office (No. 06- 0917), holding that an uncontested affidavit of indigence entitled the appellant to pursue his appeal without advance payment of costs.
- City of Dallas v. Reed (No. 07-0469) (per curiam), determining that a two-inch variance between traffic lanes was neither a special defect nor a premises defect for purposes of the Tort Claims Act.
I expect we'll see some lively discussion of McAllen Medical Center, Citigroup, and Reed in the coming days.
Thanks for posting the McAllen case link. It was very helpful. Good blog.
RE: Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff's Office
> an uncontested affidavit of indigence entitled the
> appellant to pursue his appeal without advance
> payment of costs.
I notice that this is not with a complete absence of consideration for the substance of the affidavit, though.
COA dismissed because the substance of the affidavit did not comply with TRAP 20.1(b).
While TRAP 20.1(f) is not ambiguous here: "[...] *and* the party will be allowed to proceed without advance payment of costs."
Under Higgins*, It appears that the standard is now that the "uncontested affidavit [be] adequate to fulfill the _fundamental purpose_ of Rule 20.1."
Bravo! Hurray for elevating substance over form and supporting public access to the courts!
This is one of my favorite citations of this principle from the Office of Court Administration:
"We will not apply such a hyper-technical importance to the words used to request access [...] that only attorneys will have the acumen to make [...]." "Citizens should be given access [...] regardless of whether they are able to invoke the correct 'magic words'"
Higgins may be fresh out of "magic words", but the TSC knew what he was talkin' bout.
* Higgins is a rather tenacious inmate and probably a celebrity in his cell block. This the second time that he has prevailed in the Texas Supreme Court in this case. The last time, the COA ought to have allowed an opportunity to correct a procedural defect. (Hurray again for supporting public access to the courts)