Search

This article explains a rising trend in American politics: the increasingly prominent role the state attorneys general (AGs) play in challenging federal policies. It focuses on one particularly important case—Republican efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act in Texas v. California. We consider how state AGs and solicitors general (SGs) drive policy efforts through litigation and the factors that contribute to their participation. We find, first, that although members of the out-of-power party in Washington are the ones who typically bring state lawsuits, the Texas litigation demonstrates that these lawsuits are also a vehicle by which members of the party in power try to achieve goals that are otherwise unattainable through the legislative process. Second, Republican AGs submerge partisan arguments in "constitution-talk" with the aim of achieving a policy goal that was defeated democratically. We reach these conclusions through content analysis of AG press releases and semi-structured interviews with litigators and other elite actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Texas v. New Mexico regarding the Pecos River Compact which was created to decide on how finite water resources should be apportioned to prevent conflicts among adjacent states. Topics include the need for more detailed terms in the Compact to resolve disputes as suggested in Texas v. Mexico, a background on the Pecos River Compact, and the history of the dispute between Texas and Mexico over the river which started since the early 1990s.

Across the country, class-action lawsuit damages are being capped by corporations due to corporate restructuring via a unique clause in the Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC). Indeed, large companies engaged in asbestos litigation (most significantly, Johnson & Johnson) are creating temporary companies in Texas, allocating to these companies all of their mass tort liabilities, and then having them seek bankruptcy protection, often in another state's venue after changing the company's domicile to a more corporate-friendly state. Such actions significantly cap the damages that plaintiffs can collect from lawsuits they have already won, as well as prevent future and current plaintiffs from having their day in court. Anywhere else in the country, these actions would constitutefraud. This Note is the first to bring attention to the use of Texas's divisive merger statute in mass tort cases and the impacts that has on plaintifts. It WiU propose specific tests and considerations for bankruptcy courts, and it calls for the Texas legislature to amend the relevant TBOC statutes to prevent Texas from further becoming a nationwide hotspot of fraud. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper illustrates the scope and contribution that the discipline of geomorphology can offer in environmental litigation. The case in question was filed by two plaintiffs who contended that the construction of a storage facility on an adjacent property had caused significant disturbance of the topsoil, and that runoff from the impermeable surfaces (e.g., roofs, driveways) had exacerbated the problem by eroding and transporting soil and fill material from the facility directly into three ponds owned by them. They sued for $1.6 million to cover dredging, restoration of the ponds, and disposal of the sediment. Utilizing a range of geomorphological techniques, I was able to determine the most likely source area(s) of eroded sediment within the basin and quantify the extent to which the defendant's property contributed runoff and sediment to the ponds. The lawsuit was dismissed before ever going to trial. In the paper, I discuss the steps involved in the process of being an expert witness and also share some of the advice I have received from attorneys with whom I have worked. I emphasize the importance of setting any case study within a larger spatial context and encourage my fellow geomorphologists to become involved as experts in litigation because, in most instances, we can contribute to an appropriate outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court has long held that certain types of sentences violate the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Throughout the Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, it has reiterated that excessive-punishment claims are informed by evolving standards of decency. When the Court assesses a form of punishment under the Eighth Amendment, it utilizes a two-part proportionality review. This test requires the Court to first assess whether a national consensus has formed against a particular type of punishment through an examination of state legislation. If a national consensus exists, then the Court subjectively contemplates whether it has reason to disagree with the legislative trend. Consequently, a particular punishment violates the Eighth Amendment if the Court agrees with the national consensus. In 2002, for the first time, the Supreme Court held that using capital punishment on intellectually disabled offenders constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. In its decision, the Court provided little guidance and left to the states the autonomy to develop standards for assessing intellectual disability in such cases. However, this task proved problematic, demonstrated by the Court granting certiorari twice in the past fifteen years to determine whether state standards adhere to its 2002 holding. In Moore v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down Texas's procedural standards for assessing intellectual disability in capital cases. Specifically, it held that Texas's use of seven evidentiary questions based upon lay perceptions was unconstitutional because a national consensus had formed against utilizing this type of subjective indicia to determine intellectual disability. This Case Comment analyzes the Court's reasoning behind its invalidation of Texas's standards, as well as the differences in state procedures for determining intellectual disability. These variations in state standards indicate that intellectually disabled offenders may be subject to the death penalty in some states but not in others depending on where they are tried and sentenced. Finally, through the lens of the incorporation and equal protection doctrines, this Comment argues that the Court should cease its search for national consensus when contemplating the constitutionality of different state procedures and instead provide a uniform test for determining intellectual disability in capital cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the history of interlocutory appeals in Texas. Topics discussed include analysis of interlocutory appeals from 1892 to 1985 such as orders appointing trustees and receiver, temporary injunctions, and class actions; consolidating and centralizing interlocutory appeal statute; and denials of summary judgment cases involving free speech, and special appearance.

Objective: To describe the litigation experience in a state with strict tort reform of a large public university health system that has committed to transparency with patients and families in resolving medical errors.Data Sources/study Setting: Secondary data collected from The University of Texas System, which self-insures approximately 6,000 physicians at six health campuses across the state. We obtained internal case management data for all medical malpractice claims closed during 1 year before and 6 recent years following the enactment of state tort reform legislation.Study Design: We retrospectively reviewed information about malpractice claimants, malpractice claims, and the process and outcome of dispute resolution.Data Collection/extraction Methods: We accessed an internal case management database, supplemented by both electronic and paper records compiled by the university's Office of General Counsel.Principal Findings: Closed claims dropped from 244 in 2001-2002 to an annual mean of 96 in 2009-2015, closures following lawsuits from 136 in 2001-2002 to an annual mean of 28 in 2009-2015, and paid claims from 60 in 2001 to an annual mean of 20 in 2009-2015. Patterns of resolution suggest efforts by the university to provide some compensation to injured patients in cases that were no longer economically viable for plaintiffs' lawyers to litigate. The percentage of payments relating to cases in which lawsuits had been filed decreased from 82 percent in 2001-2002 to 47 percent in 2009-2012 and again to 29 percent in 2012-2015, although most paid claimants were represented by attorneys. Unrepresented patients received payment in 13 cases closed in 2009-2012 (22 percent of payments; mean amount $60,566) and in 24 cases closed in 2012-2015 (41 percent of payments; mean amount $109,410). Even after tort reform, however, claims that resulted in payment remained slow to resolve, which was worsened for claimants subject to Medicare secondary payer rules. Strict confidentiality became a more common condition of settlement, although restrictions were subsequently relaxed in order to further transparency and improve patient safety.Conclusions: Malpractice litigation risk diminished substantially for a public university health system in Texas following legal changes that reduced rights to sue and available damages. Health systems operating in a low-tort environment should work with policy makers, plaintiffs' attorneys, and patient groups to assist unrepresented patients, facilitate early mediation, limit nondisclosure obligations following settlement, and expedite the resolution of Medicare liens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On a Tuesday in November, millions of Americans show up and cast their votes, even in the face of cynicism, perceived futility, and disappointment with the politicians in Washington. It is the birthright of every citizen, and there is simply nothing more fundamentally American. The future of this right is now uncertain in the wake of the United States Supreme Court decisions Crawford and Shelby County. This Note suggests finding certainty by re-framing the current test for the constitutionality of state voting restrictions, the Anderson-Burdick Balancing Test. This new imagining of the current test hinges on identifying the nature of the burden being placed on voters by the state restriction. Instead of a one-size-fits-all test, courts would choose between two standards--Anderson or Burdick. This Note explores this new iteration of the test through a case study of the interaction of several Texas state laws and policies that could lead to the disenfranchisement of thousands of United States citizens simply because they were born to undocumented immigrants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the concept of doctrinal overlap in relation to legal cases which can often be analyzed using a multiple legal doctrines, and it mentions the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the case Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc. which deals with Texas constitutional law, government speech, and a specialty license plate design featuring the Confederate States of America's flag. Lawsuits involving the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are assessed.

The article discusses the Supreme Court of Texas' ruling in the 2013 case Rachal v. Reitz which deals with the claim that successor trustee and attorney Hal Rachal Jr. breached his fiduciary duty by failing to provide an accounting to the beneficiaries of a trust, and it mentions the impact of the court's judgment on arbitration provisions in trust agreements. The history of American trust law is examined, along with the intent of settlor and a direct benefits estoppel theory in Texas.

The article discusses the decision of San Antonio, Texas Court of Appeals on the lawsuit Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Bragg related to groundwater regulation in Texas. Topics discussed include the laws for regulating the use of groundwater in Texas, legal developments for creating cause of action under the takings clause, and the laws for regulating endangered species litigation.

The article offers information the history, purpose and procedures for filing the state and federal summary judgments process in Texas and other states of the U.S. It discusses various types of cases amenable to summary judgments including statute of limitations, res judicata and collateral estoppel, and medical malpractice. Topics also discussed include the burden of proof for summary judgments, attorney's fees, and the significance of the expert witness testimony.

The article discusses a guide to use requests for admission of court under discovery rule in Texas. It makes specific reference of several court cases including Hendler v. North Shore Boat Works Inc., Howard Opera House Associates v. Urban Outfitters Inc. and Read-Rite Corporation v. Burlington Air Express Ltd. Other topics discussed include depositions, disclosure requests and interrogatories.