Texas Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : D. Todd Smith Law Firm : Appeals, Sanctions, Summary Judgment : Austin, Texas

If something looks too good to be true, it probably is.  So it goes with the notion that the Fourth Court of Appeals would begin regularly webcasting oral arguments through the St. Mary's Law School web site.

According to the Tex Parte Blog, the Fourth Court will hear two cases tomorrow on the St. Mary's campus.  The St. Mary's courtroom is set up for live webcasting, but the court's regular home at the Cadena-Reeves Justice Center is not.  No wonder we didn't see any official announcement.

Webcasting an intermediate court of appeals argument is still a good thing.  It just needs to be done on a wider and more regular basis.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Although I haven't seen an official announcement (or any publicity whatsoever), it looks as if the Fourth Court of Appeals will begin webcasting oral arguments through the St. Mary's University web site on March 5, 2008.

The Fourth Court would be the logical choice for expanding the webcasting program, considering that St. Mary's (also in San Antonio) provided all of the equipment and funding for the Texas Supreme Court pilot (previously discussed here, here, and here) and is presumably doing so again.  Until the Legislature appropriates the necessary monies or more Texas law schools step up, we can expect the other 13 intermediate appellate courts and the Court of Criminal Appeals to stay blacked out.

3/4/08 Update:  Sadly, it was too good to be true.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. Cailloux, the Fourth Court of Appeals has reversed a $65.5 million judgment against Baker Botts and Wells Fargo Bank based on jury findings that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to a widow who voluntarily disclaimed her right to her husband's share of their marital estate.  After concluding that the plaintiff presented no evidence of causation and that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an "equitable trust" on the defendants, the appellate court rendered a take-nothing judgment.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks