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

As predicted, the Texas Supreme Court issued a monster set of orders today, releasing opinions in 22 cases (two of which were merely corrected or supplemental opinons in previously decided cases).  As has been the trend recently, the Court moved some of its older pending matters, including two with "04" docket numbers.

Time is short as we head into Labor Day weekend, so I will not be able to blurb all of these cases today.  Click here to review Osler McCarthy's detailed summaries.

In case you're wondering, today's output but does not set a record.  Officially, the Court issued 35 written opinions (including non-majority writings) in 20 cases today.  According to Osler, the record is 36 writings in 24 cases, set July 9, 1997—coincidentally, the last regular set of orders issued before I completed my clerkship with the Court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

After two consecutive Olympic-themed Blawg Reviews, I was tempted go for a third despite my initial decision not to do so.  Like most of America, I am officially entering post-Olympic withdrawal, and a celebration of what were truly a remarkable Games would have been appropriate.

The problem is, I am so in awe of what transpired over the past two weeks—particularly the accomplishments of Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt, capped off by the unlikely pairing of Leona Lewis and Jimmy Page playing a Led Zeppelin classic [update:  the YouTube video of the pair performing "Whole Lotta Love" is "no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party"]—that none of my ideas for a theme would have done the Games justice.  So, with those comments, let this “themeless” edition of Blawg Review begin!

Litigation:

Greg May at the California Blog of Appeal asks Why Are Some Lawyers and Their Clients Reluctant to Engage Appellate Counsel?  That's a very good question, Greg.  They shouldn't be.

The Drug & Device Law Blog offers some Random Thoughts on Randomness that will speak to anyone who has ever done litigation work.

The YouTube "dancing baby" litigation is covered in depth at Internet Cases, Deeplinks, Madisonian.net , Techdirt, and The Prior Art, among other places.

At the Chicago IP Litigation Blog, R. David Donaghue discusses the NFL's antitrust case in Seventh Circuit Affirms:  NFL is a Single Entity.  The Sports Law Blog adds to the discussion by noting The Return of The Single Entity Defense for Sports Leagues, and Blawgletter chimes in with Annals of Antitrust Law:  NFL Owners Can't Conspire.

Litigation & Trial wants to know:  Are Lawyers Risk-Averse for Not Working on Contingent Fees?

Although Swordplay  comes from across the pond, its observations in Ten Acts of Lunacy by Jurors would apply anywhere jury trials are held.

Law Is Cool raises a legitimate question when it asks How Will Courtrooms Deal With Obesity Epidemic?

And to add a little humor factor, Lowering the Bar discusses Knights Templar v. Pope Benedict XVI, et al., a 700-year-old dispute that finally developed into a lawsuit.  Now, about that limitations defense . . . .

Practice Management and Marketing:

Susan Cartier Liebel of Build a Solo Practice, LLC discusses her conversation with the original solo practice guru in My Unexpected Phone Call with Jay Foonberg.  (Sole practitioners and law students, be sure to check out Susan’s “other” project, Solo Practice University, where classes will start soon.)

At Law21, Jordan Furlong laments an opportunity lost in Capped fees, limited innovation.

At LawBizBlog, Ed Poll takes a look at  Surveys of Law Firm Clients.

Jamie Spencer of Austin DWI Lawyer highlights a reason why lawyers might want to think twice about listing themselves on big referral sites in DUI / DWI Lawyers:  Biggest Slime Balls on the Face of the Earth?

The Legal Marketing Blog asks Should You Pay Attention To The Social Networking Craze?  Follow me on Twitter (@dtoddsmith) to compare notes.

Technology and the Internet:

At Real Lawyers Have Blogs, Kevin O'Keefe offers FindLaw some tips for setting things right in FindLaw SEO misconduct : Suggested course of conduct.   On a related point, Robert Ambrogi's LawSites warns that These lawyer sites mislead consumers.

Cyb3rcrim3 explores the truly scary revelation that Hacking a Heart dependent on a pacemaker is technically possible through wireless technology.

The Greatest American Lawyer tells us about Google’s Fascination With Digg and how it might eventually change the dynamics of search-engine rankings.

BlawgIT tells businesspeople they should Worry About Internet Law Because . . .

Miscellaneous:

The Race to the Bottom has some recommendations for a certain coffeehouse chain in Starbucks and Social Responsibility:  Loyalty Cards Just Aren't Working.

The Consumer Goods & Retail Industry Litigation Blog takes a look at the ups and downs of minimum retail pricing in WSJ Examines Manufacturers’ Resale Price Maintenance Practices.

The Legal Satyricon's Jessica Christensen investigates why the Federal Government Doesn't Want Transgendered Employee to Help Fight War on Terror.

At Simple Justice, Scott Greenfield discusses whether being named A Person of Interest is more difficult than actually being charged with a crime and asks, Does Presumed Innocent Mean Less Than Innocent?

On the lighter side, at Legal Blog Watch, Robert Ambrogi offers what I hope is the first of many installments of Strange But True, Legal Edition.

And last, but not least, Houston's Clear Thinkers discusses the NFL's next flagship stadium, as well as some Cowboy business that (not counting preseason) will soon be on the minds of many folks here in the Lone Star State.

Blawg Review has information about next week's host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (3)

The Texas Supreme Court issued its last "summer recess" orders today.  As expected, no opinions were issued.

The floodgates should open with next Friday's orders.  It's the last Friday of the fiscal year, so opinions issued next week will be reflected in the 2007-08 statistics.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As the Texas Supreme Court returns from its summer break, the Court has posted its calendar in a new format on its official website.  The new version is vastly improved from the old Word and PDF documents previously available, as it is much easier on the eyes and provides more detailed information about the events listed.  For example, clicking on an "Oral Arguments" entry brings up a list of cases being argued that day.  This upgrade will be an even better resource for Court watchers (you know who you are), casual observers, and everyone in-between.

Source:  Blake Hawthorne, Clerk, Supreme Court of Texas.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As many of you know, I am editor of the State Bar of Texas Appellate Section publication, The Appellate Advocate.  We are filling out our roster of contributors for Volume 21—my last as editor per the Section's bylaws—and have several opportunities available for folks interested in contributing case updates or substantive articles.  If interested, please contact me directly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two weeks from today, I'll take my second run at hosting Blawg Review, the blog carnival for everyone interested in law.  My first effort was fairly well received, and I find myself wondering what I can do to top it.  If anyone has suggestions for a theme or any other ideas, I'd love to hear them.

The Olympics are out, unfortunately, as that's the theme of Blawg Review #172, now up at the Ohio Employer's Law Blog.  Fellow LexBlogger R. David Donoghue takes up the mantle next week at his Chicago IP Litigation Blog.

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

This is the first installment of my series entitled "20 Questions About Texas Appellate Practice."  The question answered here is:  "How is the Texas appellate court system structured?"  Visit the original post (linked above) for the list of questions updated with links to their respective answers.

Texas has 14 intermediate courts of appeals, each of which hears both civil and criminal cases.  The intermediate courts are located in Houston (1st and 14th Districts), Fort Worth (2nd District), Austin (3rd), San Antonio (4th), Dallas (5th), Texarkana (6th), Amarillo (7th), El Paso (8th), Beaumont (9th), Waco (10th), Eastland (11th), Tyler (12th), and Corpus Christi (13th).  Generally, each court draws cases from its assigned geographic region, although transfers sometimes occur through a process known as "docket equalization."  There are some other jurisdictional quirks, as a handful of the state's 254 counties fall into more than one appellate district, and the state's most densely populated region is served by two intermediate appellate courts (1st and 14th).

A court of appeals has appellate jurisdiction in all civil cases over which the district or county courts have jurisdiction when the amount in controversy or the judgment exceeds $100, exclusive of interest and costs.  The court of appeals has final authority on all factual issues—applying standards of review, it can “unfind” facts the jury found and review the jury’s failure to find certain facts, but it cannot simply substitute its judgment for the jury’s.

Texas is one of only two states with a dual high-court system.  (Oklahoma is the other.)  The Texas Supreme Court has jurisdiction over civil cases as described below.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the criminal-law equivalent to the supreme court.

The supreme court's jurisdiction is limited to questions of law.  Among the statutory jurisdictional grounds, the following are most common:

• the justices of a court of appeals disagree on a question of law material to the decision (“dissent jurisdiction”);
  
  
• the decision conflicts with a prior decision from another court of appeals or of the supreme court on a question of law material to the case (“conflicts jurisdiction”);
  
  
• the case involves the construction or validity of a statute; or
  
  
• it appears that the court of appeals has committed an error of law, and that the error is of such importance to state jurisprudence that it requires correction.

Although the supreme court cannot decide fact issues of fact, it is the ultimate arbiter of the law. The supreme court may review the court of appeals’ decision to make sure it applied the correct legal standards.

Members of the Texas appellate judiciary run in partisan elections and fill six-year terms.  When a justice leaves office during his or her term, the Governor appoints a replacement.  An appointee must run in the next general election to retain the position for the rest of an unexpired term.

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

I'm not a star-struck person.  The few times I've seen celebrities cavorting about Austin, I haven't been fazed.  But just about every lawyer in town knows the story about how Sandra Bullock's "dream house" had to be torn down (allegedly) because of defective workmanship.  Bullock and the general contractor got into a legal tussle that ultimately settled after a high-profile jury trial right here in Travis County.

The Third Court of Appeals today rejected the GC's claims against several subcontractors who worked on the project.  In a single opinion deciding seven cases severed from the original Bullock matter, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's orders dismissing them in part and ultimately disposing of them by summary judgment.  The court concluded that the GC's "claims in these various appeals fail because (1) they are barred by limitations, (2) they are inadequately briefed, or (3) they lack merit."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Between vacations and a very full workload, I haven’t been blogging all that much over the summer. Nevertheless, I got a call last week from a reporter at law360.com who saw my posts on webcasting court proceedings and wanted to interview me for an article she was writing.  The article, quoting yours truly, appears here.

The article discusses live webcasting as a trend among state supreme courts, naming "Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, West Virginia, New Jersey, North Dakota, Maryland and Florida are among the states that webcast oral arguments, sometimes teaming up with a local law school to do it."  Federal courts—um, not so much.

While I like to think of the Texas Supreme Court (with help from St. Mary's Law School) as a pioneer in this area, it apparently doesn't get the "I was here first" award.  According to the law360.com article, the Florida Supreme Court "has been webcasting its oral arguments, and even broadcasting them on cable TV, since 1997."

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks