Search

The article presents the text of the remarks given by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to the 2023 Federalist Society National Student Symposium. He discussed the categories of people involved in the battle for the soul of the future of the U.S., a tip for those preparing for the bar exam, and the ultimate place to litigate if one wants to be a litigator.

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 author reflects on the implications of accommodation doctrine that affords protection to surface estate owners in Texas on oil and gas law and policy in the state. Topics discussed include a brief history of the accommodation doctrine in Texas, the Texas Supreme Court' decision in case Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc. that addressed issues surrounding the law of the accommodation doctrine, and bargaining power between mineral owners and surface owners 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.

The author reflects on the Texas's anti-SLAPP suits and its powerful dismissal function for protection of the right of free speech. Topics discussed include a brief overview of free speech rights and defamation law in Texas, the growing movement in the U.S to pass anti-SLAPP legislation along with the impetus behind the Texas Citizen Participation Act (TCPA). The author also discusses the provisions, court interpretations and subsequent amendments of the anti-SLAPP statue.

The author discusses the water allocation laws of Texas. Topics discussed include analyzing the dispute between the Highland Lakes and the Texas Rice Producers' Legislative Group to find equitable and economically efficient resolution, examining the agreements of several Western states to cooperate and collaborate in solving water crises, and approving plans by Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) to construct reservoirs in southwest of Houston to help rice farmers.

The article discusses the importance of education to the two fundamental components to human dignity, democracy and liberty, and failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize and protect the right to education. Topics discussed include the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas which provides scope for protecting the right to privacy, need for new form of constitutional analysis to positive right of access to public education, and government's duty to preserve human dignity.

The article focuses on trade secrets misappropriation in Texas based on the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA). Topics discussed include the misappropriation of trade secrets included in the common law restatement of torts approach, the Texas Supreme Court's decision in case Hyde Corp. v. Huffines that addressed the trade secret issue, and issues of confidential relationship addressed in trade secret cases.

The article focuses on the social conditions of freed blacks in Houston, Texas during the 19th century. The author discusses the laws and legislation that segregated Houston's white and black residents, explores the employment opportunities afforded to freed blacks at the time, and analyzes several lawsuits filed by freed blacks. He also examines the interracial relationships between freed black women and white men.

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's ruling in the 2012 case McFaul v. Valenzuela which deals with the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution, the free exercise of religion in American prisons, and the U.S. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. The court in the McFaul case considers a Texas prison's decision to prohibit prisoner Anson McFaul from obtaining and possessing Neo-Pagan medallions which exceeded 25 dollars in value.

The article discusses the Texas Supreme Court case Houston and Texas Central Railroad Company v. W.A. East from 1904. According to the article, the case set the initial legal boundaries for groundwater rights in Texas and established the system known as absolute ownership of property, also known as the rule of capture. The article states that, as of January 2013, the case had been reconsidered several times but never overturned.

The article examines the impact on minority enrollment in Texas graduate schools made by the 2003 Supreme Court case of Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the right to use affirmative action in admissions practices. Results of the study found an increase in minority enrollment at public institutions, the effects of selectivity, and a minimal impact on private schools. Other similar cases referenced include 1978's Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1996's Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School, and 2003's Gratz v. Bollinger.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas case Ass'n of Taxicab Operators USA v. City of Dallas which deals with Love Field Airport in Dallas, Texas and its environmental policy which allows natural gas-powered taxicabs to cut in line in front of non-natural gas-powered vehicles as of June 2012. The author argues that the Love Field head-of-the-line policy stands as a strong example of an incentive-based policy which is aimed at improving air quality.

Background: Previous reports have confirmed that comprehensive tort reform in Texas (enacted in 2003) was associated with fewer lawsuits and less litigation-associated cost. We hypothesized that complaints to the Texas Medical Board (TMB) increased after tort reform. Study Design: To test this hypothesis, we compared complaints, investigations, disciplinary actions, and penalties against physicians before and after comprehensive state tort reform measures were adopted. Data were obtained from the TMB for a 15-year period (1996 to 2010). Results: When comparing the period before tort reform (1996 to 2002) with the period after tort reform (2004 to 2010), TMB complaints increased 13%; investigations opened increased 33%, disciplinary actions increased 96%, license revocations or surrenders increased 47%, and financial penalties increased 367%. All of these increases were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.01). Conclusions: After tort reform in Texas, the total number of complaints, investigations, disciplinary decisions, license revocations or surrenders, and financial penalties from the TMB significantly increased. In Texas, tort reform was accompanied by legislatively directed, enhanced oversight and activity of the authority (TMB) charged with regulation of the medical profession. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article discusses groundwater regulation in Texas, the state's Edwards Aquifer Authority Act of 1993, and the Supreme Court of Texas' ruling in the case Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) v. Day which deals with groundwater ownership rights. Landowners property rights to groundwater in place and water planning in Texas are addressed, along with a constitutional claim of water rights. The EAA reportedly impleaded the State of Texas as a third-party defendant in a district court matter.

The article provides a historical overview of the litigation matters related to the 1948 American Senate primary election between then-U.S. Congressman Lyndon B. Johnson and former Texas Governor Coke Stevenson, including a review of the lawyering techniques which were employed by the attorneys for both of the Democratic Party candidates. Law professors Stefan H. Krieger and Richard K. Neumann, Jr. and their analysis of how a lawyer can gain control over a situation are mentioned.

The Big Bend of Texas suffered a number of illegitimate land schemes during the twentieth century's early decades. Perhaps none was more simple and effective than that devised by the Santa Fe Land Trust & Title Company. In 1936, during the Great Depression, the firm showed up in downtown Dallas with an office in the Santa Fe Building. The office's name and building location no doubt caught the eye of many potential customers who associated the railroad giant with the small land firm. During the next several years attorneys at a Galveston firm hired by the Santa Fe Railroad Company worked off and on with state government officials to document that the land company was up to no good. In the meantime, however , the Santa Fe Land Trust & Title's principals duped a number of aspiring investors from around the United States and Canada, some of whom thought they had purchased land parcels in what today is Big Bend Ranch State Park. This article recounts the land sales hoax and situates it in the Park's colorful background. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the application of the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 (Rule 202) in pre-suit depositions. The rule enables plaintiffs to initiate pre-suit depositions to examine potential claims. An overview of the coverage of Rule 202 and its role in courts across the state is presented, along with the discussion of the removability of Rule 202 proceedings. The authors content that the Reverse Erie doctrine will not preempt Rule 202.

The article presents an analysis regarding the misperception in federal class action law and as well as the emerging trends in Texas. It presents the actual numbers of class actions filed in the state and analyzes how those numbers reflect changes in the law and future. It offers tips on how to successfully litigate a class action. Moreover, the definition of consumer class action is also examined.

This article examines the culmination of strategic tendencies to combine demands for recognition of class-based and race-based discrimination in the early 1970s. San Antonio independent School District v. Rodriguez was a pivotal case during this period. The Rodriguez claimants were low-income children and families of color whose school district was dramatically unequal in every respect when compared to the local, wealthy, white school district at issue in the case. The Court treated, however, the claims of race and class discrimination that the claimants put forward as entirely independent, and ignored the plaintiff's race claim in order to focus on class alone, which the Court dismissed as a category not entitled to constitutional protection. This article argues that the outcome in Rodriguez was directly tied to legal frameworks that negated the possibility of protecting more than one constitutional category at the same time. The Court's decision provided an economic privacy and local fiscal control rationale that solidified the separation of race and class as categories of constitutional analysis, to the detriment of future claims at the intersection of race and class remedies for segregated and unequal schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the impact of the court case Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on state tort suites. In the case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that providing backpay to illegal immigrants defeats the federal policy of decreasing the magnetic force between the U.S. economy and foreigners who want to enter the U.S. for work. It examines the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) preempts the Texas Wrongful Death Act (WDA).