February 11, 2008
Last week, Chief Jefferson discussed the recent and unfortunate headlines SCOTX has been making of late. Yesterday, former Chief Phillips addressed an editorial in the Houston Chronicle bemoaning the backlog of cases currently pending at SCOTX.
Texas is lucky indeed to have had two such classy and talented Chief Justices in the modern era.
Thx to SCOTX Blog and the Texas Appellate Law Blog
January 18, 2008
A Harris County judge has just dismissed the indictments against Justice Medina and his wife
Thx to the Dallas Morning News
January 17, 2008
Well, it flat-out stinks to return to the blogosphere with this piece of news, but here it is nonetheless:
Justice David Medina, whose recent travails we have reluctantly covered, was reportedly indicted today in Houston, along with his wife, in connection to the fire that destroyed their Houston home last summer. Curiously, the Houston Chronicle story relates that Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal has already stated he will move to dismiss the indictments for lack of evidence however.
*** Update ***
Both the grand jury foreman and assistant foreman have apparently taken issue with the DA’s decision not to prosecute. Assistant foreman Jeffrey Dorrell siad “Rosenthal resisted these indictments with a vigor I have never seen or heard before.” Foreman Robert Ryan was even more direct, stating, “This is ludicrous. This is not right. This is a miscarriage of justice. If this was David Medina, comma, truck driver, comma, Baytown, Texas, he would have been indicted three months ago.”
Thx to the Houston Chronicle
November 7, 2007
Some months ago, a novel if sloppily-crafted recusal motion was filed with SCOTX seeking the recusal of “Justices Jefferson, [sic] Hecht, Brister and [sic] Wainwright [sic]” based upon a U.T. law professor’s “unbiased” recent article chronicling reversal trends of tort cases at the Court.
However, what plaintiffs’ lawyer Ben Martin–who represented the Real Parties in Interest–deems “unbiased,” may be somewhat less so. Professor David Anderson’s article concludes with the the thought:
[O]nly the most obtuse voter could fail to realize that Republican candidates are more likely than Democrats to believe tort liability needs to be curtailed. But advancing an ideology by adopting congenial legal principles is one thing; advancing an anti-tort ideology simply by refusing to allow plaintiffs to succeed is quite another.
David A. Anderson, Judicial Tort Reform in Texas, 26 REV. LITIG. 1, 46 (Winter 2007).
Professor Anderson’s presumption that the outcome of cases granted review or the denial of review to others is premised upon a desire to “refus[e] to allow plaintiffs to succeed” is as breathtakingly obtuse as the voters Professor Anderson presumes to understand.
No less sweeping in generalities or shoddy reasoning is Mr. Martin’s recusal motion, which excludes Justice O’Neill from his list of hopelessly biased Justices on the basis that she dissented six times during a portion of the years examined by Professor Anderson’s article. Of course, Mr. Martin saw no need to study the subject matter of those six cases or the reasoning favored by the majority or Justice O’Neill in her dissents. Not surprisingly, the Justices were unpersuaded to recuse themselves on such a contrived basis and subsequently denied the motion.
Well, leave it to a Florida lawyer to teach Mr. Martin how to recuse a supreme court. After first suing the SCOTUS Justices as well as three judges of the Eleventh Circuit for violating his rights to an impartial tribunal in a child-custody case, Montgomery Sibley sued the SCOTUS Justices for treason for failing to recuse themselves as named defendants in the prior action. Well, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held the SCOTUS Justices were, of course, protected by judicial immunity from such a suit, but because more than six of the Justices were recused due to the underlying suit, the Court was statutorily forced to summarily and in absentia uphold the D.C. Court’s affirmance of their own immunity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2109.
Thx to Tex Parte Blog and the WSJ Law Blog
October 24, 2007
Following up on a recent post concerning the arson investigation of a fire that consumed Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina‘s home, Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal has confirmed that Justice Medina is not a suspect in the arson case.
Thx to Tex Parte Blog, and the Houston Chronicle
October 4, 2007
Because of my affinity for the Court, I have been reluctant to repeat mere rumors concerning sitting Justices. However, a press account (admittedly little better than run-of-the-mill rumors these days) regarding an arson investigation involving the destruction of Justice David Medina‘s house has now been confirmed by the Harris County Fire Marshal’s Office.
Particularly distressing however, is the report that:
six “persons of interest,” all of whom are Medina family members or friends, have been identified in the investigation, which is expected to be completed within 90 days … [and that] there were inconsistencies in Medina’s and his wife’s account of where he was the night of the fire.
***Update***
Thx to Texas Politics and the Houston Chroniicle
September 12, 2007
The Tarlton Law Library at UT has recently put online the Texas Legal History Digital LIbrary, which is comprised of two sites, one of which is dedicated to the Texas Constitutions 1824-1876 and which aims to:
provide[] page images of the constitutions of Texas in effect from 1824 to 1876. Also included are copies of journals and debates of the constitutional conventions at which those constitutions were adopted. The resource links provisions of the several constitutions to those portions of the journals and debates where those provisions were discussed.
The second site focuses Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals’ Justices from 1836-1986, which:
includes, for each member of the Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals between 1836 and 1986, a portrait and biography, citations to opinions authored, and links to additional resources.
Thx to Tarlton Law Library and the generosity of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission
September 10, 2007
As of this week, SCOTX is posting it’s calendar through August 2008 online. Blake Hawthorne and Chief Jefferson deserve kudos for the continuing modernization and increased accessiblity of Court information.
Thx to the Texas Appellate Law Blog
September 7, 2007
This morning sitting at an extremely non-nerdy appellate lawyer meeting in Austin (yeah, right), one of the speakers was Kurt Kuhn of Brown McCarroll appellate practice fame, who presented a fascinating paper on recent voting trends at SCOTX since the recent musical chairs of new Justices up there has slowed down.
As part of his presentation, Mr. Kuhn printed up SCOTX trading cards for each Justice, complete with opinion statistics on the back. No idea if Mr. Kuhn plans to mass-market these, but they are a truly brilliant idea, and a necessary desk accessory for any Texas appellate lawyer.
Thx to Kurt Kuhn and Brown McCarroll
August 14, 2007
Texas Watch, the “non-partisan, advocacy organization working to improve consumer and insurance protections for Texas families,” filed another complaint today against Justice Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court , alleging that a Texas Secretary of State election law opinion issued in 1985 and a State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) admonishment of former Justice Kilgarlin (the “Kilgarlin Admonishment”) (Justice Hecht’s predecessor in Place 6 on the Bench) somehow serves as “stirkingly similar” precedent underlying Texas Watch’s latest jeremiad against Justice Hecht.
About the only thing “strikingly similar” between the admonishment of Justice Kilgarlin and Texas Watch’s most recent complaint against Justice Hecht is that they both involve SCOTX Justices and the SCJC. Alex Winslow–Executive Director of Texas Watch, signatory to all the complaints filed against Justice Hecht, and non-attorney–thinks so much of a supposed distinction in the Kilgarlin Admonishment that he italicizes his strained attempt at a point regarding the “difference between using and soliciting funds for such a matter.”
Well, if you peruse page six of the Kilgarlin Admonishment where the SCJC explains its conclusion regarding the solicitation and use of campaign funds, it is plain the distinction the SCJC draws regards the type of action for which the funds were solicited. The SCJC itself said it best when it clarified that:
[W]hile it may be permissible to solicit and use such funds for the purpose of challenging the constitutionality of the issuance of the legislative subpoena, the [SCJC] is of the opinion that the solicitation of funds by the judge to prosecute the lawsuit against a former briefing attorney who had testified before the House Committee is an entirely different matter.
The SCJC defended the right of a judge to challenge the constitutionality of a sanction, but thought it a bridge too far to use those funds to finance the filing of a separate suit against persons tangentially-related to the sanction.
Here, Justice Hecht never filed a suit against anyone, he merely appealed the constitionality of the sanction levied against him by the SCJC. Hyper-ironically, the very wording of the Kilgarlin Admonition–upon which Texas Watch entirely relies–permits the very type of expenditure and solicitation of campaign funds that Texas Watch hollowly bemoans.
Bottom line is that this latest complaint has absolutely no merit, and further reveals Texas Watch’s utter buffoonery. However, as predicted earlier, Justice Hecht has already been forced to expend more funds in order to retain counsel to defend him in this latest round of partisan witch-huntery.
Thx to the Texas Lawyer
July 24, 2007
Today, Texas Watch filed three complaints against Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, all of which stem from a twenty-five percent discount given Justice Hecht by the law firm that represented him in his successful challenge to the wrongful admonition handed down by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Texas Watch filed complaints with the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s office, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, and the Texas Ethics Commission, claiming the discount Justice Hecht received was worth at least $100,000, and therefore exceeded the $5,000 limit for individual donations and the $30,000 limit on donations from political action committees.
Justice Hecht’s attorney, Chip Babcock of Jackson Walker, said that his firm considered the discount to be pro bono work. For his part, Justice Hecht voluntarily recused himself from all cases before SCOTX in which Jackson Walker was listed as counsel during the pendency of his appeal.
Admitting the scattershot approach his organization (which is a historically left-leaning lobbying organization, despite its laughable claim to being nonpartisan) had taken in simultaneously filing three complaints–the first ever filed by Texas Watch–with three different oversight agencies undercut the viability of Texas Watch’s claims, Executive Director Alex Winslow acknowledged: “[w]e don’t think it’s possible for Justice Hecht to have committed three offenses here, but we felt that there’s enough of a question with each of these, that we needed to file all three.”
For whatever it’s worth, my continuing take on this latest round in the Days of our Hecht Saga is that all three complaints are each very serious allegations that will invariably and quickly cost Justice Hecht the $100,000 in defense costs of which Texas Watch complains he was spared during the previous round of vexatious litigation.
Of the three, however, the one that would give me the most pause is the complaint with the Travis County D.A.’s office led by Ronnie Earle, who gained recent notoriety empaneling several, successive grand juries to indict Tom Delay, only to have that indictment thrown out because it didn’t actually allege actions which constituted a crime at the time the actions were alleged to have occurred.
Accordingly, Ronnie Earle has demonstrated that he is unafraid to use his office to pursue a blatantly partisan political agenda, and thus, might relish the thought of going after a famous conservative intellect like Justice Hecht.
We’ll keep you posted as this develops ….
Thx to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and the San Antonio Express-News
July 24, 2007
According to the good folks from the Texas Lawyer over at Tex Parte Blog, Dallas County Judge Craig Smith has announced that he mulling whether or not to challenge Chief Justice Jefferson for the top judicial post in the State.
Let’s just do a quick and dirty comparison, shall we? Chief Jefferson was an appellate lawyer by trade (and board certified in appellate law as well) at the prestigious appellate boutique, then-named Crofts, Callaway & Jefferson, and who had already argued and won two cases before SCOTUS by the time he was appointed to now-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez‘s seat on SCOTX.
Judge Smith described himself in the 2004 League of Women Voters’ guide as a trial lawyer with an emphasis on personal injury law (in which he is impressively board certified, in addition to civil trial law).
Sitting on our state’s highest appellate bench is not for the faint of heart or mind, and I am dubious that the voters of Texas would trade out a man who was a distinuished appellate lawyer before he ever became a widely-respected appellate jurist for a trial lawyer whose chief legal accomplishment is having been swept onto the state district court bench in a straight-ticket election in which every single Democrat running for any office won.
Plus, to publicly announce you’re “thinking” about running for an office is just tacky.
Thx to Tex Parte Blog
July 20, 2007
Earlier this week, I posted a short retort to the Austin American Statesman‘s condemnation of Justice Nathan Hecht‘s fundraising to pay the legal fees he incurred in defending himself against an admonition later found to be unconstitutional and silly to boot.
Partners at BigTex firms in this state (where the majority of sitting SCOTX Justices have begun their practices) routinely make anywhere from $400k to $2.5 M per year. Counting the new raise SCOTX Justices just received in 2005, they now make $150k per year, a full $10k less than their clerks do as soon as they walk out of the Tom C. Clark building.
How on Earth could a few thousand or even a few million in campaign donations (which must be reported and can’t be spent on personal expenses without risking imprisonment and disbarment) be even slightly corrupting to someone who could make that much and more in the private sector without any of the ethics reporting requirements or public scrutiny?
The sheer ignorance of some like Texas Watch or Texans for Public Justice of the personal financial sacrifice imposed by choosing to sit on the bench instead of in a firm office is glaring. Anyone so easily corrupted by money would never choose to walk away from the private sector in order to someday “pay back” donors with favorable decisions, all for a relative pittance in compensation.
Agree that the system is not ideal in a myriad of ways, and subjects our judges to the appearance of impropriety, but the reality of the financial gaps between public service and private employment is now so huge, that to argue someone runs for a seat on the appellate bench for the money is laughable.
Thx to our Texas judiciary
July 19, 2007
The Justice Hecht saga continues.
On Sunday, Senior Associate Justice Nathan L. Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court filed a report to the Texas Ethics Commission detailing the donations he received from contributors to pay the legal bills he incurred in successfully challenging the wrongful admonition the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued him in May 2006.
Justice Hecht’s disclosure details almost $450,000 raised to pay his legal fees, of which he paid his attorney Chip Babcock (of Jackson Walker and Oprah fame) some $344,000.
Well, the editorial board of the Austin American Statesman has taken exception to Justice Hecht’s fundraising, saying that “[t]he lawyers and law firms who didn’t give to Hecht would not be unreasonable in fearing they were at a disadvantage when going up against those who did.”
This reasoning by the Statesman editorial board is–to borrow a Scaliaism–“sheer applesauce.”
First, I have personally worked with Texas judges who, because of our regrettable system of partisan judicial elections, have been forced to raise funds to secure their jobs. As bad as it admittedly looks to have lawyers and firms appear before the judges to whom they contribute, the mere appearance of impropriety does not make it so. By and large, the lawyers who choose to take the requisite HUGE paycut in order to serve their fellow citizens as members of the judiciary are: (1) obviously not all that impressed by money in the first place; and (2) perfectly able to separate the tacky election system to which they must adhere from the jurisprudential duty they have sworn to uphold. Justice Hecht is no exception to this observation.
I realize, however, that this concept seems impossibly naive and to most journalists who only see corruption and vice in their elected officials.
Second, if a judge were going to be swayed by dollar signs, why would money contributed in one context be more corrupting than that contributed in another? As Justice Hecht has stated, there is no meaningful difference between these two types of contributions, and any that does exist would not be more or less enticing to someone predisposed to shame their office.
Third, the Statesman Board’s supposition that other appellate counsel wouldn’t be “unreasonable” in feeling disadvantaged if they weren’t from a law firm that had contributed to Justice Hecht’s defense fund reveals a further fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system, and appellate practice in particular. Appellate counsel would be wise to worry far more about the quality of their research, briefing, and oral argument, rather than who contributed how much to whom. Moreover, as the Statesman Board may not be aware, SCOTX sits en banc, instead of in three-judge panels as do the fourteen courts of appeal, so the loss of one vote for whatever reason at SCOTX has far less impact on the eventual disposition of the petition than it might with an intermediate appeal.
No thx to the Statesman
July 9, 2007
Former Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, John L. Hill Jr. passed away Monday in Houston.
Few have achieved as much and sacrificed as greatly for their beloved State as did Chief Hill. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.
Thx to Chief Hill for his years of service to Texas
June 11, 2007
In the case of Roman v. Roman (06-0554), SCOTX has requested full briefing regarding the rights of one spouse to have previously-frozen embryos implanted in her womb versus the right of the ex-spouse and potential father to prevent such implantation.
Thx to the Statesman
May 23, 2007
Sen. Duncan’s bill that would have drastically overhauled the jurisdiction of SCOTX, among other more controversial changes, was derailed Monday by a point of order lodged by Rep. Senfronia Thompson, a Democrat and Houston solo.
Thx to Texas Lawyer
May 11, 2007
Today, the sole SCOTX opinion issued on this morning’s orders happens to be the third authored opinion in the case of F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez, making the opinion in this case perhaps the most revised in the history of the Court. The distinction between this line of cases and the four Edgewood school finance opinions is that the Edgewood plaintiffs brought separate suits challenging successive Legislative “solutions” to Texas’ system of school finance, while Duenez has been revised three times on the same underlying facts.
(Notice the non-Santaishness of the Court’s robes)
The latest entry in the Duenez saga appears to merely make more precise some of the language from the Nov. 3, 2006 iteration, without altering the the substantive holdings of the original (or intermediate, as it were) opinion. The main thrust of the revision appears to be this passage:
Dram shops are liable if they provide alcoholic beverages to an individual that is obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presents a clear danger to himself and others, and the intoxication of the patron was a proximate cause of the injuries. Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 2.02(b). These requirements were promulgated by the passage of the Act in 1987. In this case, we hold that dram shops are responsible for the proportion of damages they cause or contribute to cause, as set forth in the Proportionate Responsibility Act. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.003.
It is interesting to speculate, however, what briefing prompted the Court to take such a drastic measure as to re-issue an opinion it had already disposed of twice (holding differently both times). The Court’s docket shows that the Motion for Rehearing and an Amicus letter were the only documents filed between the Court’s Nov. 3 intermediate opinion and today’s revision. Judging by the Court’s action today, either or both documents must have been particularly persuasive.
Thx to SCOTX and the Texas Appellate Law Blog
Sophistic Miltonian Serbonian Blog © 