SCOTX 2011

As 2011 comes to a close, everyone else is doing their year in review editions.

Not to be left out, we at the Appellate Record thought we'd do a comprehensive summary of the significant cases from the Supreme Court of Texas for the year 2011.

Well, not so much. I just got asked the other day for my thoughts on significant cases and developments and the four areas I thought of are listed below after the jump.

In no particular order, they include the statute of limitations, fraud, expert testimony, and Kelo as applied or not applied to pipelines.

Enjoy.

Continue Reading...

Font Humor--Hipster Ariel

Hat tip to the unknown meme inventor.

 

Tags:

Judge Per Curiam to the Rescue: Ryland Enterprise v. Weatherspoon

When counting your blessings, do not neglect to mention Judge Per Curiam at the Supreme Court of Texas. On Friday, Judge Per Curiam threw out a life line to rescue an appeal.

The lower courts had held that a pre-judgment motion for JNOV did not extend the appellate time table. Judge Per Curiam, kind and soft-hearted chap that he/she is, held that it was close enough.

The prejudgment NOV motion did extend the appellate time table, making the notice of appeal timely. To prove it, Judge Per Curiam took a jaunt through the rules governing appellate time tables in a manner befitting someone sitting for the board certification exam (*ahem*).

In this case, a number of overlapping procedural rules apply. Under Rule 26.1, the normal filing deadline for a notice of appeal is thirty days. That deadline is extended to ninety days “if any party timely files: (1) a motion for new trial; [or] (2) a motion to modify the judgment.” TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1)–(2). Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b states that a motion for new trial is timely if filed “prior to or within thirty days after the judgment . . . complained of is signed.” TEX. R.CIV. P. 329b(a) (emphasis added). This “prior to” language is supplemented and clarified by civil rule 306c, which provides that “[n]o motion for new trial . . . shall be held ineffective because prematurely filed; but every such motion shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of but subsequent to the time of signing of the judgment the motion assails.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 306c. The Rules of Appellate Procedure echo this concept in Rule 27.2, under which “[t]he appellate court may treat actions taken before an appealable order is signed as relating to an appeal of that order and give them effect as if they had been taken after the order was signed.” TEX. R.APP. P. 27.2. Finally, civil rule 329b(g) states that a “motion to modify . . . shall be filed and determined . . . and shall extend . . . the time for perfecting an appeal in the same manner as a motion for new trial.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(g). Thus, the premature filing rules in civil rule 306c and appellate rule 27.2 apply equally to motions for new trial or to modify the judgment. Under these overlapping procedural rules, the filing of a motion for new trial or to modify the judgment, before the judgment is signed or within thirty days after, extends the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to ninety days.

Just about the only unpardonable sin in appellate practice is failing to get the notice of appeal filed on time. So much so that one of my unalterable life goals is to complete my appellate career without having to "make" any law on appellate jurisdiction.

Way too scary.

But if you do have to make jurisdictional law, it is probably Judge Per Curiam -- not the intermediate courts -- who will grant you mercy. 

Judge Per Curiam, full of grace.

Story Time For Litigators

There's something wrong with the story that follows after the jump.

Actually, there's one big thing wrong, which is the product of a lot of little things.

To get the full effect, imagine that it is set out in 12 point, double-spaced, Times New Roman with one inch margins.

In a post (or posts) to come, my head will explode about why we lawyers write so poorly. Is there a law somewhere that says we must  . . . .

But I digress.

After the jump is the story. Any resemblance between my story and a brief you may have sent me to edit is purely coincidental.

Or at least really really exaggerated to make a point.

Continue Reading...

ABA Journal Recognizes The Most Interesting Blawger In The World

This whole law practice thing has been interfering with my blawgorial duties to you, dear reader.

Je regrette.

And yet when I awoke in the country home last week and checked e-mail whilst sipping a hand-crafted beverage and nibbling an artisanal baguette, I was gratified to learn that the ABA Journal had selected The Appellate Record as one of the ABA Journal's Blawg 100.  Guess which category.

(Wait for it)

The Trial Practice Category.

Mon Dieu. C'est tout bonnement horrible.

Mais, hélas, mes amis. There is no Appellate Practice category.

Clearly Texas is one of the few, the proud, the enlightened jurisdictions who recognize that no trial lawyer ought be left alone in an appellate court or really anywhere at all with a pure question of law. 

Or a word processor.

Or a book.

But I jest.

We (the royal "we') at the Appellate Record will be gracious and accept this award in the generous spirit in which it was intended. We are gratified to be among the blawgger glitterati such as SCOTUSblog and the Volokh Conspiracy.

But now that means you need to get to work.

Click over to ABA site and VOTE for the appellate record as the most insanely great Trial Practice (*sob*) blawg on the planet with the "Most Interesting Blawger In The World."

Did I mention that you can VOTE.

No street protests or risking life and limb. Just voting with a mouse.

The trial lawyer you save may be your own.

Merci beaucoup.