DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court Update SUPREME COURT UPDATE HONORABLE NATHAN L. HECHT, Austin Justice, Supreme Court of Texas State Bar of Texas rd 33 ANNUAL ADVANCED REAL ESTATE LAW July 7-9, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 3 ___________________________________________________ SUPREME COURT UPDATE ___________________________________________________ Phil Johnson Justice Supreme Court of Texas Heather Holmes Staff Attorney Robert Brailas Staff Attorney John Beck Law Clerk Sara Berkeley Law Clerk George Padis Intern Georgie Gonzales Executive Assistant Special thanks to all the Staff Attorneys and Law Clerks at the Supreme Court of Texas for their substantial contributions. ___________________________________________________ February 1, 2011 – April 30, 2011 ___________________________________________________ NATHAN L. HECHT Justice Nathan L. Hecht is the Senior Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, having been elected in 1988 and re-elected in 1994, 2000, and 2006. He is the senior Texas appellate judge in active service. Throughout his service on the Court, Justice Hecht has overseen revisions to the rules of administration, practice, and procedure in Texas courts. In 2000, he was appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for the Judicial Conference of the United States, on which he served until 2006. Justice Hecht began his judicial service in 1981, when he was appointed to the 95th District Court in Dallas County. He was elected to that bench in 1982 and re-elected in 1984. In 1986 he was elected to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, where he served until he was elected to the Supreme Court. Before taking the bench, Nathan Hecht was a partner in the Dallas law firm of Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely (now Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell). He joined that firm in 1976 and practiced mainly in the area of general business and commercial litigation. Justice Hecht received a B.A. degree with honors in philosophy from Yale University in 1971. He attended Southern Methodist University School of Law as a Hatton W. Sumners Scholar, and received his J.D. degree cum laude in 1974. He was elected to Order of the Coif and served as an editor for the Southwestern Law Journal. Following law school, he served as a law clerk to the Hon. Roger Robb, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He also served in the U.S. Naval Reserve Judge Advocate General Corps, achieving the rank of Lieutenant. He was honorably discharged from military service in 1979. Justice Hecht is licensed to practice in Texas and the District of Columbia. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the District of Columbia Bar Association, the State Bar of Texas, the Dallas Bar Association, and the Austin Bar Association. He is also a member of the American Law Institute, a fellow in the American Bar Foundation, a life fellow in the Texas Bar Foundation, and a founding fellow of the Dallas Bar Foundation. He received the Outstanding Young Lawyer Award from the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers in 1984, the Southern Methodist University School of Law Distinguished Alumni Award for Judicial Service in 2000, and the Hatton W. Sumners Foundation Distinguished Public Service Award in 2004. He has taught as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Texas School of Law. He is a member of the Texas Philosophical Society. Supreme Court Update February 1, 2011 – April 30, 2011 Chapter 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SCOPE OF THIS ARTICLE........................................................ 1 II. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW......................................................... 1 A. Driver’s License Suspension. ................................................ 1 1. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Caruana, 2010 WL 522783, (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) pet. granted, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 538 (February 8, 2011) [10-0321].. 1 B. Judicial Review............................................................ 1 1. Fin. Comm’n of Tex. v. Norwood, 303 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010), pet granted, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 561 (February 25, 2011) [10-0121].. 1 2. R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. Tex. Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water, S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 642 (Tex. March 11, 2011) [08-0497].. 2 C. Public Utility Commission................................................... 2 1. State v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 690 (Tex. March 18, 2011) [08-0421].. 2 III. ARBITRATION................................................................. 3 A. Appellate Jurisdiction....................................................... 3 1. Ellis v. Schlimmer, S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 793 (Tex. April 1, 2011) [10- 0243]........................................................... 3 B. Enforcement/Non-Signatories................................................ 3 1. In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. March 11, 2011) [09-0309].. 3 IV. ATTORNEYS................................................................... 4 A. Fees...................................................................... 4 1. El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 324 S.W.3d 181 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010), pet. granted, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 561 (February 25, 2011) [10-0490].. 4 2. Tex. Elec. Util. Constr., Ltd. v. Infrasource Underground Constr. Servs., L.L.C., 2010 WL 2638066 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2010), pet. granted, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 881 (April 29, 2011) [10-0628].. 4 V. CONTRACTS.................................................................... 5 A. Fraudulent Inducement..................................................... 5 1. Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 822 (Tex. April 15, 2011) [08-0989].. 5 B. Third-Party Beneficiaries.................................................... 6 1. Basic Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc., S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 781 (Tex. April 1, 2011) [08-0244]... 6 VI. DAMAGES..................................................................... 6 A. Punitive Damages.......................................................... 6 1. Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez, 310 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010), pet granted, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 633 (March 11, 2011) [10-0426].. 6 VII. EMPLOYMENT LAW. ......................................................... 7 A. Pay Discrimination Claims. ................................................. 7 1. Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha, 317 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010), pet granted, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 561 (February 25, 2011) [10-0353]... 7 ii Supreme Court Update February 1, 2011 – April 30, 2011 Chapter 3 VIII. EQUINE ACTIVITY ACT....................................................... 7 A. Interpretation and Application............................................... 7 1. Loftin v. Lee, S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 895 (Tex. April 29, 2011) [09- 0313]........................................................... 7 IX. EVIDENCE..................................................................... 8 A. Lay Opinion Testimony..................................................... 8 1. Reid Road Mun. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. Speedy Stop Food Stores, Ltd., S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 658 (Tex. March 11, 2011) [09-0396].. 8 X. FAMILY LAW................................................................... 9 A. Child Support............................................................. 9 1. Iliff v. Iliff, S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 843 (Tex. April 15, 2011) [09-0753]... 9 XI. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY.................................................. 9 A. Contract Claims........................................................... 9 1. City of Houston v. Williams, S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 713 (Tex. March 18, 2011) [09-0770].. 9 XII. INSURANCE.................................................................. 10 A. Policies/Coverage. ........................................................ 10 1. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 334 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. February 25, 2011) [10-0064].. 10 XIII. JURISDICTION.............................................................. 10 A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction................................................. 10 1. Minton v. Gunn, 301 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009), pet. granted, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 538 (February 8, 2011) [10-0141].. 10 XIV. MEDICAL LIABILITY........................................................ 11 A. Expert Reports. .......................................................... 11 1. Mitchell v. The Methodist Hosp., S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 669 (Tex. March 11, 2011) [10-0117].. 11 2. Samlowski v. Wooten, 332 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. February 25, 2011) [08-0667].. 11 3. Stockton v. Offenbach, S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 590 (Tex. February 25, 2011) [09-0446].. 12 B. Health Care Liability Claims................................................ 12 1. Ghazali v. Brown, 307 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010), pet. granted, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 537, 538 (February 8, 2011) [10-0232].. 12 2. Tex. West Oaks Hosp., LP v. Williams, 322 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010), pet. granted, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 750 (April 1, 2011) [10-0603].. 13 3. Turtle Healthcare Grp. v. Linan, S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 911 (Tex. April 29, 2011) [09-0613].. 13 4. Wasserman v. Gugel, 2010 WL 1992622 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010), pet. granted, 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 750 (Tex. April 1, 2011) [10-0513].. 14 C. Statute of Limitations...................................................... 15 1. Carreras v. Marroquin, S.W.3d , 54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 788 (Tex. April 1, 2011) [09- 0857].. 15 iii Supreme
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NO. 18-0159 in the SUPREME COURT of TEXAS GTECH CORPORATION, Petitioner, V. JAMES STEELE, Et Al., Respondents RESPONDENTS JAMES
    NO. 18-0159 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS GTECH CORPORATION, Petitioner, V. JAMES STEELE, et al., Respondents RESPONDENTS JAMES STEELE, ET AL.’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REVIEW W. Mark Lanier Richard L. LaGarde Manfred Sternberg Kevin P. Parker LaGarde Law Firm Manfred Sternberg & Chris Gadoury 3000 Weslayan, Suite 380 Associates, P.C. THE LANIER LAW Houston, Texas 77027 4550 Post Oak Place Dr., FIRM, P.C. Phone: (713) 993-0660 Suite 119 6810 FM 1960 Rd. West Fax: (713) 993-9007 Houston, Texas 77027 Houston, Texas 77069 [email protected] Phone: (713) 622-4300 Phone: (713) 659-5200 Fax: (713) 622-9899 Fax: (713) 659-2204 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Respondents James Steele, et al. (See signature block for all other counsel of record) August 20, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iii ISSUE PRESENTED ................................................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 5 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 7 I. THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY DETERMINED, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, THAT GTECH EXERCISED DISCRETION ......................................... 9 A. The Record is Replete with Evidence of GTECH
    [Show full text]
  • Download Report
    July 15th Campaign Finance Reports Covering January 1 – June 30, 2021 STATEWIDE OFFICEHOLDERS July 18, 2021 GOVERNOR – Governor Greg Abbott – Texans for Greg Abbott - listed: Contributions: $20,872,440.43 Expenditures: $3,123,072.88 Cash-on-Hand: $55,097,867.45 Debt: $0 LT. GOVERNOR – Texans for Dan Patrick listed: Contributions: $5,025,855.00 Expenditures: $827,206.29 Cash-on-Hand: $23,619,464.15 Debt: $0 ATTORNEY GENERAL – Attorney General Ken Paxton reported: Contributions: $1,819,468.91 Expenditures: $264,065.35 Cash-on-Hand: $6,839,399.65 Debt: $125,000.00 COMPTROLLER – Comptroller Glenn Hegar reported: Contributions: $853,050.00 Expenditures: $163,827.80 Cash-on-Hand: $8,567,261.96 Debt: $0 AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER – Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller listed: Contributions: $71,695.00 Expenditures: $110,228.00 Cash-on-Hand: $107,967.40 The information contained in this publication is the property of Texas Candidates and is considered confidential and may contain proprietary information. It is meant solely for the intended recipient. Access to this published information by anyone else is unauthorized unless Texas Candidates grants permission. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this is prohibited. The views expressed in this publication are, unless otherwise stated, those of the author and not those of Texas Candidates or its management. STATEWIDES Debt: $0 LAND COMMISSIONER – Land Commissioner George P. Bush reported: Contributions: $2,264,137.95
    [Show full text]
  • The Weekly News 10-07-20.Indd
    PRSRT STD US POSTAGE PAID Permit No. 00002 Gainesville, Texas The ECRWSS Weekly News of Cooke County © 2020 The Weekly News of Cooke County Volume 17, Number 19 Cooke County, Texas October 7, 2020 Cooke County’s LARGEST and MOST READ Newspaper! Gainesville Hospital King District Approves Budget Around By Delania Raney ating and capital budget for fi scal and the special called August 17, in February when we got it,” Th e Weekly News year 2020-2021. No one signed 2020 meeting. Th e board also CFO Shelle Diehm said. “Th ey Town up to speak during the hearing approved the July and August fi - said that should be booked as a GAINESVILLE – Gainesville and the board approved the bud- nancial reports. limited pay back to the district Hospital District Board of Direc- get with two negative votes. “If you look at page six on so based on the structure of all by Grice King tors held a hearing Monday, Sep- Th e board approved minutes line one that’s income from op- those agreements we had instead tember 28 on the proposed oper- of the July 27, 2020 meeting erations after we did the audit the district gave to the hospital certain assets receivable, etc. So they’re similar to repaying a loan of $7.5 million and we’ve already paid the second $2.5 million. So in the budget even though it says we’re short that money, that cash is in your bank, and I’ll show you where that is in the cash fl ow.
    [Show full text]
  • Useful Internet Sites and Articles Casemaker V
    Issue 2016-03 www.collincountytx.gov August 2016 Useful Internet Sites and Articles Casemaker v. Fastcase—What’s the Differ- opinions from 1947, Texas case law since 1886, ence? Texas session laws since 1995, state court rules, In June of 2014, the State Bar of Texas became and Texas revised statutes with archived ver- the first state bar association to offer its mem- sions since 2001. Just like Fastcase, Casemaker bers free access to both Casemaker and Fast- offers free webinars and tutorials. Casecheck+ case. While both are legal research products, ensures that the case law citations are still good there are some differences between the two. law, CiteCheck shows any negative history and CasemakerDigest is a daily summary of state and federal appellate cases searchable by practice area. A few months after access to both Fastcase and Casemaker was introduced, the State Bar of According to the State Bar of Texas website, the Texas Texas Bar Blog featured an article with a Texas Plan is available free to all Texas lawyers review of both services. Attorney Grant and the Premium Plan is available free to solo Scheiner prefers Fastcase because of its easy firms and firms of 10 lawyers or less. The Texas transition to smartphones and tablets with the Plan includes Supreme Court of Texas opinions Fastcase app, available on both Andriod and Ap- and courts of appeal opinions dating back to ple. The mobile sync feature allows the user to 1759, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinions, share search results and research materials the United States Code annotated, Texas stat- across all devices at once.
    [Show full text]
  • Fortieth Emergency Order Regarding the Covid-19 State of Disaster
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ════════════════════ Misc. Docket No. 21-9079 ════════════════════ FORTIETH EMERGENCY ORDER REGARDING THE COVID-19 STATE OF DISASTER ════════════════════════════════════════════════════ ORDERED that: 1. Governor Abbott has declared a state of disaster in all 254 counties in the State of Texas in response to the imminent threat of the COVID-19 pandemic. This Order is issued pursuant to Section 22.0035(b) of the Texas Government Code. 2. The Thirty-Eighth Emergency Order (Misc. Dkt. No. 21-9060) is renewed as amended. 3. Subject only to constitutional limitations, all courts in Texas may in any case, civil or criminal, without a participant’s consent: a. except as provided in paragraph 4, modify or suspend any and all deadlines and procedures, whether prescribed by statute, rule, or order, for a stated period ending no later than October 1, 2021; b. except as this Order provides otherwise, allow or require anyone involved in any hearing, deposition, or other proceeding of any kind—including but not limited to a party, attorney, witness, court reporter, grand juror, or petit juror—to participate remotely, such as by teleconferencing, videoconferencing, or other means; c. consider as evidence sworn statements made out of court or sworn testimony given remotely, out of court, such as by teleconferencing, videoconferencing, or other means; d. conduct proceedings away from the court’s usual location with reasonable notice and access to the participants and the public; e. require every participant in a proceeding to alert the court if the participant has, or knows of another participant who has: (i) COVID-19 or a fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, sore throat, loss of taste or smell, congestion or runny nose, nausea or vomiting, or diarrhea; or (ii) recently been in close contact with a person who is confirmed to have COVID-19 or exhibiting the symptoms described above; f.
    [Show full text]
  • Article V 363 Judicial Department
    363 ARTICLE V 363 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Sec. 1. JUDICIAL POWER; COURTS IN WHICH VESTED. The judicial power of this State shall be vested in one Supreme Court, in Courts of Civil Appeals, in a Court of Criminal Appeals, in District Courts, in County Courts, in Commissioners Courts, in Courts of Justices of the Peace, and in such other courts as may be provided by law. The Criminal District Court of Galveston and Harris Counties shall continue with the district jurisdiction and organization now existing by law until otherwise provided by law. The Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof, and may conform the jurisdiction of the district and other inferior courts thereto. History The Texas judicial system reflects both Spanish and Anglo-American tradi- tions. The state's earliest judicial system was of Spanish origin. When the colonists arrived in Texas, the legal system theoretically in force was the Roman civil law as modified by the Spanish. The key figure in that system was the alcalde, an official who had both administrative and judicial duties. The alcalde bore some resem- blance to both the mayor and the justice of the peace in the Anglo-American system. In fact, however, there was no functioning court system in the unde- veloped province of Texas. In 1822, before leaving for Mexico City to obtain confirmation of his authority to colonize, Stephen F. Austin introduced the first Anglo-American judicial institution by appointing a provisional justice of the peace, Josiah H. Bell, to administer justice among the colonists during Austin's absence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Texas from Courtroom to Classroom: Mock Oral Arguments
    The Supreme Court of Texas From Courtroom to Classroom: Mock Oral Arguments Guide for Teachers and Students: High School Welcome to the Supreme Court of Texas ..................................................................................1 An Introduction to Oral Arguments ...........................................................................................4 Cast of Characters .......................................................................................................................7 Greenhill Mall v. Daniel’s Deli Problem ...................................................................................10 Cindy Rella v. Belle D. Beauty .......................................................................................13 Clark Kent v. Bruce Wayne .............................................................................................15 Dictionary Definitions ...................................................................................................17 You Be the Judge: Sample Questions ........................................................................................18 Brainstorming for Lawyer and Amici Curiae Arguments ......................................................19 Oral Argument Roadmap .........................................................................................................21 Audience Member Activity ........................................................................................................23 Mock Oral Argument Script .....................................................................................................24
    [Show full text]
  • In Re Lazy W District No. 1, Relator
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 15-0117 444444444444 IN RE LAZY W DISTRICT NO. 1, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Argued March 9, 2016 CHIEF JUSTICE HECHT delivered the opinion of the Court. This original mandamus proceeding involves two governmental entities, one of which petitioned for condemnation of a water pipeline easement across the other’s land. The condemnee asserted governmental immunity, and the trial court refused to proceed further without deciding whether the case should be dismissed. The next step would be for the trial court to appoint special commissioners to make an initial determination of the value of the property to be taken. The trial court is not to interfere in the commissioners’ proceedings and does not become involved again until the commissioners file their award. The court of appeals granted mandamus relief, holding that the trial court must defer ruling on the immunity issue until after the commissioners file their award and a party objects.1 We disagree and conditionally grant relief. 1 ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015, orig. proceeding). The Tarrant Regional Water District (“the Water District”) supplies water to some two million Texans across 11 counties, including residents of the cities of Fort Worth and Arlington. Created in 1924,2 the Water District is a governmental agency3 with the power of eminent domain.4 In 2010, after years of studies and negotiations, the Water District and the City of Dallas approved a financing agreement to build a 150-mile pipeline to transport water owned by Dallas in Lake Palestine to the Dallas/Fort Worth area to meet its growing needs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Storm Between the Quiet: Tumult in the Texas Supreme Court, 1911-21
    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2007 The Storm Between the Quiet: Tumult in the Texas Supreme Court, 1911-21 Michael S. Ariens St. Mary's University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael S. Ariens, The Storm Between the Quiet: Tumult in the Texas Supreme Court, 1911-21, 38 St. Mary’s L.J. 641 (2007). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ST. MARY'S LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 38 2007 NUMBER 3 ARTICLES THE STORM BETWEEN THE QUIET: TUMULT IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, 1911-21 BY MICHAEL S. ARIENS* I. Introduction ........................................... 642 II. The Gathering Storm .................................. 645 A. A Time of Change ................................ 645 B. The State of Texas, 1910 .......................... 647 C. Prohibition, Circa 1910 ............................ 648 D. The Prohibition Referendum of 1911 ............. 651 E. The Election of 1912 .............................. 655 1. The Race for Governor ....................... 655 2. The Supreme Court Elections, 1912 ........... 657 III. Reform and Reform Again ............................ 665 A . Justice D elayed .................................... 665 B. Success and Failure ................................ 670 C. Work and Workload ............................... 671 D . Breakdown ........................................ 677 * Professor of Law, St. Mary's University School of Law, San Antonio, Texas. Thanks to Wayne Scott for his comments on an earlier draft.
    [Show full text]
  • NCSC Pandemic Webinar Summaries for 2020
    NCSC Pandemic Webinar Summaries 2020 National Center for State Courts NCSC Pandemic Webinar Summaries for 2020 Chron. Webinar Title Date(s) Page in Sequence (Alphabetical) This Document 3rd Access to Justice Considerations for State and April 3rd, pg. 4 Local Courts as They Respond to COVID-19: A 2020 Conversation 17th Addressing Court Workplace Mental Health and June 25th, pg. 5 Well-Being in Tense Times 2020 32nd Administering Criminal Courts During the October pg. 7 Pandemic: Next Steps 29th, 2020 29th Approaches to Managing Juvenile Cases in the October 1st, pg. 8 COVID Era 2020 18th Back to the Future: Video Remote Interpreting June 30th, pg. 10 and Other Language Access Solutions in the 2020 Time of COVID 27th Court Management of Guardianships and September pg. 12 Conservatorships During the Pandemic 23rd, 2020 24th COVID-19 Business Litigation Grab Bag September pg. 14 14th, 2020 20th COVID-19 Commercial Contract Litigation July 20th, pg. 16 2020 10th COVID-19 and Courthouse Planning to Get May 15th, pg. 18 Back to Business Inside the Courthouse 2020 21st COVID-19 Labor and Employment Liability August 3rd, pg. 19 2020 22nd COVID-19 State Insolvency: Receiverships & August 10th, pg. 20 Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors 2020 9th Developing Plans for Expanding In-Person May 1st, pg. 22 Court Operations 2020 19th Essential Steps to Tackle Backlog and Prepare July 19th, pg. 24 for a Surge in New Cases 2020 11th Expanding Court Operations II: Outside the Box May 19th, pg. 26 Strategies 2020 33rd Fair and Efficient Handling of Consumer Debt November pg.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Texas
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ════════════════════ Misc. Docket No. 20-9047 ════════════════════ SIXTH EMERGENCY ORDER REGARDING THE COVID-19 STATE OF DISASTER ════════════════════════════════════════════════════ ORDERED that: 1. Governor Abbott has declared a state of disaster in all 254 counties in the State of Texas in response to the imminent threat of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. This Order supplements and does not replace or amend prior Emergency Orders Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster. 3. The Court’s Order issued February 7, 2005, in Misc. Dkt. No. 05-9012, effectively allowed electronic voting in elections of the State Bar of Texas. Since then, voting in those elections has been both by electronic means and by paper ballot. 4. Because of uncertainty regarding the feasibility of handling paper ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 elections for presidents-elect and directors of the State Bar of Texas and the Texas Young Lawyers Association must be conducted online only, by electronic vote, and not by paper ballot. The voting period is extended to May 29, 2020, at 5:00pm. 5. The order expires at the conclusion of the 2020 elections of the State Bar of Texas and the Texas Young Lawyers Association unless extended by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 6. The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to: a. post a copy of this Order on www.txcourts.gov; b. file a copy of this Order with the Secretary of State; and c. send a copy of this Order to the Governor, the Attorney General, and each member of the Legislature.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of TEXAS Bill
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Bill Misc. Docket No. 97- ORDER AND OPINION DENYING REQUEST UNDER OPEN RECORDS ACT PER CURIAM The Court has received a request under the Texas Open Records Act, TEx. Gov'T CODE §§ 552.001-.353, from Andrew Wheat with Texans for Public Justice, for "any outgoing and incoming telecommunications records (office/cellular/mobile and fax phones) for Texas Supreme Court Justices and their staffs for the period covering Aug. 30, 1996 to Apri12, 1997." The Court's usual practice when it receives a request under the Open Records Act is to instruct the Clerk to deny the request by letter on the grounds that the Legislature has expressly excluded the judiciary from the Act. The Act requires a "governmental body" to release "public information" on request, id. § 552.221(a), but to protect the independence of the judiciary the Act plainly states, "`Governmental body' . does not include the judiciary", id. § 552.003(1)(B). The exclusion of the judiciary simply could not be plainer, as every Attorney General has confirmed since the Act was passed twenty-four years ago. We must alter our usual practice on this occasion because of Attorney General Dan Morales' recent issuance of Open Records Decision No. 657 (July 24, 1997). For the first time an Attorney General has introduced confusion and uncertainty into the construction of a clear statute. At issue are not merely a few telephone records of the Supreme Court, but all records of all Texas judges and courts. We write to explain why ORD-657 is incorrect.
    [Show full text]