Supreme Court of Texas Blog: Legal Issues Before the Texas Supreme Court
-----------

School finance: The State wins; the ISDs lose; the Legislature now has a wider range of options to reform the system

by

Today, the Court issued its ruling in the Texas school finance case. The public information officer’s summary is more than 3000 words. I tried it […]

Today, the Court issued its ruling in the Texas school finance case. The public information officer’s summary is more than 3000 words. I tried it in three tweets:

The vote was unanimous on the merits, although some Justices wrote separately to emphasize the importance of education.

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

Comments Off on School finance: The State wins; the ISDs lose; the Legislature now has a wider range of options to reform the systemTags: Case Notes

No opinions or grants [Mar. 11, 2016]

by

The Court again had a quiet orders list this week, with no opinions or grants.

The Court again had a quiet orders list this week, with no opinions or grants.

Comments Off on No opinions or grants [Mar. 11, 2016]Tags: Order Lists

No opinions or grants [Mar. 4, 2016]

by

The Court did not issue any opinions with this week’s orders list.

The Court did not issue any opinions with this week’s orders list.

Comments Off on No opinions or grants [Mar. 4, 2016]Tags: Order Lists

Personal jurisdiction in a defamation case that crosses borders; interpreting an oil-and-gas agreement [Feb. 26, 2016]

by

With this week’s orders list, the Texas Supreme Court issued opinions in five cases. It did not select any new cases for future argument.

Looking at […]

With this week’s orders list, the Texas Supreme Court issued opinions in five cases. It did not select any new cases for future argument.

Looking at the calendar, to remain on-target to meet last year’s target Court has a fair number of cases to be decided in the next few months, to equal last year’s target of clearing its docket by the end of June. I see 44 argued cases remaining to be decided, with approximately 17 weeks remaining until the end of June.

Opinions

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

Comments Off on Personal jurisdiction in a defamation case that crosses borders; interpreting an oil-and-gas agreement [Feb. 26, 2016]Tags: Order Lists

Four grants for future argument (likely in the fall); rehearing granted in the Houston takings case between home owners and a flood-control district [Feb. 19, 2016]

by

This Friday’s orders list brings four more cases chosen for oral argument. It also brings a rare grant of rehearing in an argued case that […]

This Friday’s orders list brings four more cases chosen for oral argument. It also brings a rare grant of rehearing in an argued case that was decided last June: We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

The Court has not specified an argument date for the new grants. Most likely, they will be heard in the fall.

Rehearing Grant

In June, the Court decided We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

. The vote was split 5-4, with two separate dissenting opinions. A motion for rehearing was filed, and fifteen amicus filings followed shortly thereafter, urging the Court to reconsider.

Today, the Court has granted the motion for rehearing but has not (yet) withdrawn its opinions and has not (yet) set the case for re-argument, if that is its intention. Instead, the case remains on the active docket, awaiting a more final disposition.

The timing of today’s order was driven by the timing of the motion for rehearing. It was filed on August 28th — 175 days before this orders list. Had the Court waited until next week to take action, the 180-day clock for rehearing motions set by the Texas Constitution would have expired.

New Grants

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

Comments Off on Four grants for future argument (likely in the fall); rehearing granted in the Houston takings case between home owners and a flood-control district [Feb. 19, 2016]Tags: Order Lists

Two (more) grants on a Tuesday, for argument in March [Feb. 16, 2016]

by

That might sound familiar, or even vaguely predictable, for those monitoring the argument calendar:

Doing a little math… we might expect some grants to […]

That might sound familiar, or even vaguely predictable, for those monitoring the argument calendar:

Doing a little math… we might expect some grants to be announced on February 16th, to be argued on March 9th or March 10th.

The two cases granted with some orders issued earlier today (official version) are being scheduled for argument on March 9th and March 10th.

More details about these cases will appear after the docket is updated. Generally speaking, the J.B. Hunt case is about two Texas trial courts competing for jurisdiction. The Doctors Hospital case is about how liability for medical malpractice can, or cannot, percolate up through the limited-partnership structure owning a hospital.

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

Comments Off on Two (more) grants on a Tuesday, for argument in March [Feb. 16, 2016]Tags: Order Lists

Deepwater Horizon case set for March argument; no opinions or grants [Feb. 12, 2016]

by

With today’s orders list, the Texas Supreme Court did not issue any opinions or choose new cases for argument.

The Court did, however, announce an […]

With today’s orders list, the Texas Supreme Court did not issue any opinions or choose new cases for argument.

The Court did, however, announce an argument date for the certified question it previously accepted involving the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (what many outside of a courtroom call the “BP Oil Spill”).

This is a fairly quick argument setting. In December, the Court accepted this certified question from the Fifth Circuit, and the parties are wrapping up merits briefing in the Texas Supreme Court now. (( The docket calendar indicates that the reply brief was due yesterday, but that filing is not yet listed. It may be detained in e-filing purgatory. )) The argument will be 25 days from today.

We're sorry, but something went wrong (500)

We're sorry, but something went wrong.

Comments Off on Deepwater Horizon case set for March argument; no opinions or grants [Feb. 12, 2016]Tags: Order Lists

Quiet orders list [Feb. 5, 2016]

by

With today’s orders list, the Texas Supreme Court did not issue any opinions or select new cases for oral argument.

The Court will be hearing arguments […]

With today’s orders list, the Texas Supreme Court did not issue any opinions or select new cases for oral argument.

The Court will be hearing arguments next week on Monday and Tuesday.

Comments Off on Quiet orders list [Feb. 5, 2016]Tags: Order Lists