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.
