Supreme Court Judge Makes Good
On Tuesday this week, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a special set of orders.
Orders usually come out on Friday, but the Court took the rare Tuesday opportunity to grant three petitions for review and set them for argument barely 21 days after the order.
Yikes. I usually like a little more advance notice to clear my schedule, but I guess I could do it, Fortunately, I don’t have to, but my partner here at Andrews Kurth does.
The SCOTX granted review in CMH Homes, Inc. v. Adam Perez, to be argued by Scott Brister, recently of the Supreme Court of Texas but now of good ol’ Andrews Kurth LLP.
So he gets to experience the pointy end of a Supreme Court argument. Remember, Judge:
- Questions from the bench are your friend.
- Stop talking when the folks in the black robes start talking; and
- Answer the questions.
I jest. He obviously has argument experience elsewhere, and he has game.
At issue in Perez is whether there is a remedy in the appellate courts where the parties are at a deadlock and cannot choose the arbitrator in the method set out by their arbitration agreement.
But if there’s not an appellate remedy, Brister can argue that the court ought to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus as suggested in a concurring opinion in In re D. Wilson Construction Co., 196 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. 2006)--written by . . . Judge Brister.
So he’s got that going for him.
Which is good.
The best I could ever do is cite to my own law review article. How lame is that?
Welcome to the Appellate Record-- --the online community and virtual watering hole for appellate lawyers and anyone else who is comfortable with their inner law nerd.