• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Texas Supreme Court

Texas Online Court System Attacked By Ransomware.

28 Thursday May 2020

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Technology, Recent Links and Articles, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Texas Online Court System Attacked By Ransomware.

Coronavirus isn’t the Only Infection to Worry About Right Now, by Lance Caughfield, Appellate Advocacy Blog

https://bit.ly/3cbbrxV

Mr. Caughfield reports that the Texas Office of Court Administration was attacked by ransomware in May. According to Mr. Caughfield, Texas refused to pay the ransom and shut down their systems.  They are doing their best to work around the problem.

In my state, we have had our share of navigating changing rules and procedures due to COVID 19. I cannot imagine the disruption caused by attacking the court’s online systems. Imagine trying to find out the status of your case using social media.

Mr. Caughfield, a former IT professional, gives insight about how ransomware works and what we can do to keep our computer systems safe. It is excellent advice and well worth the read. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Texas Supreme Court Agrees That Compounding Pharmacy Is “Health Care Provider.”

16 Saturday May 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Damages, Health Law, Litigation, Negligence, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Texas Supreme Court Agrees That Compounding Pharmacy Is “Health Care Provider.”

Tags

Compounding Pharmacy, Health Care Provider, Health Law, Implied Warranty, Texas Medical Liability Act

 

Texas Supreme Court Holds That Compounding Pharmacies Are Health Care Providers Under Texas Medical Liability Act, by Elinor H. Murarova, Duane Morris Health Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/k75hx7m

On April 24, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court dismissed claims against a compounding pharmacy and its individual pharmacists which alleged negligence in compounding a lipoic acid medication, finding that the defendants were health care providers entitled to the protections in the Texas Medical Liability Act (‘TMLA’).

In the case Randol Mill Pharmacy et al. v. Miller et al., Case No. 13-1014 (Tex. Sup. Ct.), the plaintiff’s physician prescribed and administered weekly intravenous injections of 200 mg/ml lipoic acid, an antioxidant supplement. The plaintiff alleged that she underwent nine weeks of treatment without incident, but in the tenth treatment she suffered a severe adverse reaction and as a result was hospitalized for several weeks, received multiple blood transfusions, and went permanently blind in both eyes. Randol Mill Pharmacy compounded the lipoic acid that allegedly caused the adverse reaction.

In her complaint against the compounding pharmacy and its individual pharmacists, the plaintiff alleged that these defendants gave inadequate and inappropriate warnings and instructions for using the compounded lipoid acid; that the compounded lipoid acid was defective, ineffective and unreasonably dangerous; and that the compounding pharmacy and pharmacists generally breached implied warranties with respect to the design, manufacture, inspection, marketing, and/or distribution of the compounded lipoid acid. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Collection of Judges’ Best Advice On Legal Writing.

08 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Bad Legal Writing, District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Editing, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Oregon Supreme Court, Plain Language, Readability, Texas Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Collection of Judges’ Best Advice On Legal Writing.

Tags

Appellate Brief Writing, Bryan A. Garner, Joseph Kimble, Legal Writing, Legalese, Michigan Bar Association, Plain Language

Judges on Effective Writing: The Importance of Plain Language, by Bryan A. Garner, Vol 84 Mich. B. J. 44 (February 2005)

http://tinyurl.com/kk6trum

Each quote here is a pearl of wisdom – classical and timeless. Look no further to find the heart and soul of effective legal writing. Click on the hyperlink to find the footnotes for each quotation. -CCE

I trust that, after more than 20 years, some of the Plain Language columns are worth reprinting. This one appeared in March 1994. As I noted then, the survey that Mr. Garner mentions in his introduction is the same one that we first did in Michigan, with very similar results. See the October 1987 and May 1990 columns. The judges are identified by their judicial positions when they make their remarks. —JK (Joseph Kimble)

Lawyers are notoriously poor at gauging what judges prefer in legal writing. Too many of us believe, for example, that judges expect us to use legalese. In 1991, when the Texas Plain-Language Committee surveyed all the state district and appellate judges in Texas, we found that more than 80 percent prefer plain language (Plaintiff complains of Defendant and says) over legalese (Now comes the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys of record, Darrow and Holmes, and for his Original Petition in this cause would respectfully show unto the Court the following). Indeed, several judges responded to the survey with a plea that we stamp out legalese once and for all.

The results of that survey surprised many Texas litigators—and many changed the form of their court papers. But many more have persisted in the old, legalistic style—perhaps out of a fondness akin to what some people feel for the language of the King James Version of the Bible. Judge Lynn Hughes of Houston speaks directly to those litigators: ‘Anyone who thinks Comes now the Plaintiff is anything like the King James Version has no sense of poetry.’

Literary tastes may differ, of course, but it’s worth knowing what judges say—and have been saying for a long time—about the language we lawyers use. Following are some choice quotations I’ve recently collected. —Bryan A. Garner

Judicial Diagnoses

‘Lawyers spend a great deal of their time shoveling smoke.’ Hon. Oliver Wendell Holmes1, U.S. Supreme Court

‘[Too many lawyers believe that] it is essential to legal English that one write as pompously as possible, using words and phrases that have long since disappeared from normal English discourse.’ Hon. Antonin Scalia2 , U.S. Supreme Court

‘The reason legal writing has gotten to such a low point is that we have had very bad teachers—judges who wrote years ago and wrote badly. We learned bad habits from them and their opinions in law school.’
Hon. William Bablitch3, Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Stick to the Mother Tongue

‘[The advocate] will stock the arsenal of his mind with tested dialectical weapons. He will master the short Saxon word that pierces the mind like a spear and the simple figure that lights the understanding. He will never drive the judge to his dictionary. He will rejoice in the strength of the mother tongue as found in the King James version of the Bible, and in the power of the terse and flashing phrase of a Kipling or a Churchill.’  Hon. Robert H. Jackson4, U.S. Supreme Court

‘[A]void as much as possible stilted legal language, the thereins, thereofs, whereinbefores, hereinafters, and what-have-yous. Use English wherever you can to express the idea as well and as concisely as in law or Latin. A healthy respect for the robust Anglo-Saxon appeals more than does the Latin, whether or not it is Anglicized. The home-grown product in this case is better than the imported, not to say smuggled, one.’ Hon. Wiley B. Rutledge5, U.S. Supreme Court

‘Write so that you’re understood. English is a hard language to learn, but it’s an easy language to communicate in. There’s no reason to put Latin in your brief.’ Hon. Craig T. Enoch6, Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas

‘Don’t use legalese. It causes you to put your contentions in stale ways.’ Hon. Thomas Gibbs Gee7, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974-91

‘Legalese is an impediment to clear, logical thinking.’ Hon. F. Lee Duggan8, First Court of Appeals, Houston

‘It’s easier for a judge when you’re using common usage. Judges are only human, after all.’ Hon. Carolyn Wright9, Family District Court, Dallas

Simplify, Simplify!

‘For a hundred years, good lawyers have been writing without all the garbage and in a simple, direct style.’ Hon. Lynn N. Hughes10. U.S. District Court, Houston

‘A lawyer should write the brief at a level a 12th grader could understand. That’s a good rule of thumb. It also aids the writer. Working hard to make a brief simple is extremely rewarding because it helps a lawyer to understand the issue. At the same time, it scores points with the court.’ Hon. William Bablitch11, Supreme Court of Wisconsin

‘When a judge finds a brief which sets up from twelve to twenty or thirty issues or ‘points’ or ‘assignments of error,’ he begins to look for the two or three, perhaps the one, of controlling force. Somebody has got lost in the underbrush and the judge has to get him—or the other fellow—out. That kind of brief may be labeled the ‘obfuscating’ type. It is distinctly not the kind to use if the attorney wishes calm, temperate, dispassionate reason to emanate from the cloister. I strongly advise against use of this type of brief, consciously or unconsciously. Though this fault has been called over-analysis, it is really a type of under-analysis.’ Hon. Wiley B. Rutledge12, U.S. Supreme Court

‘The key is to make the brief easy for the judge to follow.’ Hon. Lloyd Doggett13, Supreme Court of Texas

Cut the Verbiage

‘You want your brief to be as readable as possible . . . . If I pick up a brief of 49 and a half pages, it has a little less credibility than one that succinctly argues its points in 25 pages . . . . There’s nothing better to read than a well-written brief from a really good lawyer.’ Hon. Jerry E. Smith14, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

‘Eye fatigue and irritability set in well before page 50.’ Hon. Patricia M. Wald15, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

‘A brief should manifest conviction . . . . [That] is virtually impossible . . . if it contains an excessive number of quotations or is larded with numerous citations to the authorities. Short quotations sometimes clinch a point, but long ones fail in that objective.’ Hon. George Rossman16. Supreme Court of Oregon

‘Start in the very first sentence with the problem in this case. Put it right up front. Start early. Don’t bury it under a lot of verbiage and preliminaries.’ Hon. Nathan L. Hecht17, Supreme Court of Texas

Does Style Matter?

‘Style must be regarded as one of the principal tools of the judiciary and it thus deserves detailed attention and repeated emphasis.’ Hon. Griffin B. Bell18, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

‘Lawyers are excused from the necessity of interesting their readers, and all too often—let’s face the evidence—they take advantage of this enviable exemption.’ Hon. Jerome Frank19, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

‘Is good writing rewarded? I used to think it doesn’t matter much, in comparison with legal authority, justice, and the like. Now I know better: Good writing is rewarded so automatically that you don’t even think about it.’ Hon. Murry Cohen20, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Houston

Bryan A. Garner (bagarner@att.net), president of Dallas-based LawProse, Inc. (www.lawprose.org), is the author of many books on writing, including Legal Writing in Plain English (2001) and The Elements of Legal Style (2d ed. 2002). He is also editor in chief of all current editions of Black’s Law Dictionary. He teaches at Southern Methodist University School of Law.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Hearsay Rule Affects Texas State-of-Mind Exception – Or Does It?

20 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Evidence, Rule 803 Exception, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Hearsay Rule Affects Texas State-of-Mind Exception – Or Does It?

Tags

Cogdill v. State, Colin Miller, Evidence, Hearsay Rule, Murder Trial, Rule 803, State-of-Mind Exception

Back to the Future: Court of Appeals of Texas Finds State of Mind Exception Inapplicable in Duress Case, by Editor Colin Miller, Evidence ProfBlogger, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/l2qfnap

Similar to its federal counterpart, Texas Rule of Evidence 803(3) provides an exception to the rule of hearsay for:

A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant’s will.

As I always tell my students, Rule 803(3) covers statements concerning present feelings of future intentions but not past events. So where did that leave the defendant in Cogdill v. State, 2014 WL 4627579 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2014)?

In Cogdill, Nico Allen–Antoni Cogdill was charged with capital murder. At trial, Cogdill raised a duress defense, claiming that he and Isaac Milne killed the victim because Jeremy “Bounce” Bukowski threatened them with a shotgun. To prove this claim, Cogdill sought to have Bukowski’s cellmate testify that:

Mr. Bukowski told me that the night that—that all three of them, they went out to the—to the guy’s house. He said that—that at first he had told Mr. Cogdill and Mr. Isaac Milne that it was just to go out there to rob the guy of some laptops, some computer software, and some musical instruments and stuff. He said whenever they got there he said—he said the guy that they went to rob used to be an old roommate of his and said that he told them that the guy was a convicted pedophilier (sic), and whenever they got out there he pulled a shotgun from his trunk, he held it on Mr. Cogdill and Mr. Milne and forced them to proceed with the—with the murder.

Cogdill claimed that this statement was admissible under Rule 803(3), but the trial court disagreed. On appeal, Cogdill repeated his argument, but the Court of Appeals rejected his claim, concluding:

First, we disagree with Cogdill’s interpretation of Bukowski’s statement. The statements allegedly made by Bukowski are merely a rendition of the events that took place on the night of the murder, i.e., out-of-court statements of events that occurred, and as such are hearsay and not admissible under Rule 803(3). . . . Second, numerous courts have held that for the exception set forth in Rule 803(3) to apply, the statement must relate to future, not past, conduct.

I agree with the court’s conclusion but wonder whether Cogdill also raised Texas Rule of Evidence 803(24), which provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for :

A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, or to make the declarant an object of hatred, ridicule, or disgrace, that a reasonable person in declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. In criminal cases, a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

The opinion doesn’t reference this Rule, but threatening someone with a shotgun to kill someone would certainly qualify as a statement against interest under the Rule, assuming that there were corroborating circumstances. And, unlike its federal counterpart, Texas’ statement against interest rule does not require that the declatant be unavailable.

-CM

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Texas 2-Step For Spoilation of Evidence.

24 Thursday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Evidence, Spoilation, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Texas 2-Step For Spoilation of Evidence.

Tags

Bow Tie Blog, Spoilation, Texas Supreme Court

Spoilation, Texas Style, by Joshua Gilliand, Bow Tie Blog

http://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/spoliation-texas-style/

The Texas Supreme Court has clarified the standards for spoliation (in Texas). The rule is that Texas has a two-step process: (1) the Trial Court must determine, as a question of law, whether a party spoliated evidence, and (2) if spoliation occurred, the Court must assess an appropriate remedy. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 562, 3-4 (Tex. July 3, 2014).

This Allemande Left and Do So Do requires a Trial Court to find that (1) the spoliating party had a duty to reasonably preserve evidence, and (2) the party intentionally or negligently breached that duty by failing to do so. Brookshire Bros., Ltd., at *3. This is to be done outside the presence of the jury, so the accused party is not swung around before the jurors, causing any prejudicial effect by the presentation of evidence that is unrelated to the facts underlying the lawsuit. Id. (and memories of 7th grade square dancing). . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Appellate Judges Give Advice On Winning An Appeal.

06 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Citations, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Appellate Judges Give Advice On Winning An Appeal.

Tags

Appellate Briefs, Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Chad M. Ruback, Dallas Bar Association Judiciary Committee, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Texas, Texas Supreme Court

Appellate Judges Tell Dallas Lawyers How to Handle an Appeal, By Chad M. Ruback, Appellate Lawyer

http://tinyurl.com/ousooh9

The Dallas Bar Association Judiciary Committee recently hosted a panel discussion with three prominent appellate judges.  Catharina Haynes is the only federal appellate judge in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.  After years of sitting as a Dallas state trial court judge, she was appointed to sit on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Debra Lehrmann is the only Texas Supreme Court justice from Fort Worth.  Along with Chief Justice Nathan Hecht, she is one of only two Texas Supreme Court justices who began judicial service in North Texas.  After a distinguished career in a large Dallas law firm, Elizabeth Lang-Miers serves as a justice on the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which reviews the cases from Texas state trial courts in Dallas County and five other counties.

The three panelists offered a number of helpful tips for lawyers practicing before appellate courts. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Judges Prefer “Plain Language.” If This Is True, Then Why Don’t We Use It?

01 Tuesday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Citations, Federal Judges, Footnotes, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Legalese, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Judges Prefer “Plain Language.” If This Is True, Then Why Don’t We Use It?

Tags

Bryan Garner, Clarence Darrow, Joseph Kimble, Legal Writing, Michigan Bar Journal, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Plain English Submittee, Plain Language, Texas Plain Language Committee

 Judges on Effective Writing: The Importance of Plain Language, by Bryan Garner, Michigan Bar Journal Plain Language Committee

http://tinyurl.com/qf8fhsf

 (‘‘Plain Language’’ is a regular feature of the Michigan Bar Journal, edited by Joseph Kimble for the Plain English Subcommittee of the Publications and Website Advisory Committee. We seek to improve the clarity of legal writing and the public opinion of lawyers by eliminating legalese. Want to contribute a plain-English article? Contact Prof. Kimble at Thomas Cooley Law School, P.O. Box 13038, Lansing, MI 48901. For information about the Plain English Committee, see our website—http://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/plainenglish/home.cfm.)

Lawyers are notoriously poor at gauging what judges prefer in legal writing. Too many of us believe, for example, that judges expect us to use legalese. In 1991, when the Texas Plain-Language Committee surveyed all the state district and appellate judges in Texas, we found that more than 80 percent prefer plain language (Plaintiff complains of Defendant and says) over legalese (Now comes the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys of record, Darrow and Holmes, and for his Original Petition in this cause would respectfully show unto the Court the following). Indeed, several judges responded to the survey with a plea that we stamp out legalese once and for all. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Good Advice On How to Avoid Embarrassing Mistakes In An Appeal.

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Case Law, Citations, Citations to the Record, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Mandatory Law, Primary Law, Proofreading, Research, Statement of Facts, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Good Advice On How to Avoid Embarrassing Mistakes In An Appeal.

Tags

Appellate Briefs, Appellate Law, Appellate Lawyer, Chad M. Ruback, Citations, Citations to the Record, Hyperbole, Justice Debra Lehrmann, Legal Writing, Proofreading, Statement of Facts, Texas Supreme Court

Common Mistakes Seen in Appellate Petitions and Briefs, by Chad M. Ruback, Appellate Lawyer

http://news.appeal.pro/appeals-to-texas-supreme-court/appellate-petitions-and-briefs/

Mr. Ruback served as a briefing attorney to the Fort Worth Court of Appeals. Here he shares the common mistakes that are normally seen in appellate writing. Because an appellate court never questions witnesses or hears evidence, the written documents submitted by the parties are all it has upon which to base its ruling. Sloppy and lengthy garbled arguments simply will not do. Mr. Ruback’s comments are worth noting.

I would like to add to Mr. Ruback’s list – neglecting to verify the accuracy of the appellate record while it remains in the jurisdiction of the trial court. It is a simple exercise to compare the record compiled by the trial court clerk using the Designation of Record and Counter-Designation of Record to make sure that the record is accurate.

This may seem a waste of time until the appellate record includes a deposition that was never admitted into evidence or a crucial piece of evidence is overlooked by the court clerk who assembled record for the appeal. No one is perfect; mistakes can happen.

Too often, counsel ignore this simple step. Personally, I would make sure the person you send to check the record put the trial exhibits together and/or was part of the trial team. Or to put it another way – how do you explain to a client that you couldl have avoided the appeal’s fatal flaw if you had checked the record before it was sent up on appeal? -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Keeping It Short and Sweet.

15 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Criminal Law, Legal Writing, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Keeping It Short and Sweet.

Tags

Carving Doctrine, Ex parte McWilliams, Good Legal Writing, Presiding Judge Onion, Texas Supreme Court, Tiffany Johnson

Less is More, by Tiffany Johnson, Good Legal Writing

http://goodlegalwriting.com/2014/01/03/less-is-more/

I happened upon this interesting dissent in my research recently.  If you can forgive the biting tone (note the judge’s befitting name), I think the minimalist technique is pretty effective.  It’s not bogged down with preachy legalese.  It doesn’t pontificate or soliloquize. It’s short and (not so) sweet. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Authenticating Electronic Evidence Not Always As Straightforward As It Seems.

11 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Emails, Evidence, Legal Technology, Texas Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Authenticating Electronic Evidence Not Always As Straightforward As It Seems.

Tags

Colin Miller, Electronic Evidence, Email, Evidence, EvidProf Blog, Texas Court of Appeals

You’ve Got Mail: Court of Appeals of Texas Finds Alleged E-Mail From Victim’s Mother Improperly Authenticated, by Colin Miller, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/q8avp97

There are many ways to authenticate electronic evidence. But this, says the Texas Court of Appeals, is not one of them. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Texas Supreme Court Embraces Email and Amends Civil Procedure Rules.

08 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Orders, Court Rules, Emails, Legal Technology, Texas Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Texas Supreme Court Embraces Email and Amends Civil Procedure Rules.

Tags

Civil Procedure, Frank O. Carroll III, Proof of Service, Redaction, Signature Blocks, TexAppBlog, Texas Supreme Court

Texas Supreme Court Decides Email is Here to Stay, Amends Rules of Civil Procedure Accordingly, by Frank O. Carroll III, TexAppBlog

http://tinyurl.com/jwrwy7u

When it comes to civil courts in Texas, the theme for 2013 was “fast-tracking.” The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure saw a number of changes related to triaging and expediting low-dollar controversies and eliminating “frivolous” cases early in the litigation process. While limiting requests for production and depositions in cases under $100,000 is all well and good, civil courts in Texas face much greater problems on a day-to-day basis.

One such problem is the underutilization of technology. Before 2014, email didn’t exist as far as the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure were concerned, electronic filing by fax was the equivalent of placing an envelope in the mail, and FedEx was a great way to send birthday gifts, but an unacceptable way to send discovery requests. But a new day has dawned, and 2014 is upon us…

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Ralph Losey’s Top E-Discovery Case of 2013.

29 Sunday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Discovery, E-Discovery, Preservation, Sanctions, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Ralph Losey’s Top E-Discovery Case of 2013.

Tags

E-Discovery, e-Discovery Team® Blog, Electronic discovery, ESI, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Preservation, Ralph Losey, Sanctions

Announcing My Top e-Discovery Case of 2013, by Ralph Losey, e-Discovery Team® Blog

Seal for the United States Fifth Circuit court...

http://tinyurl.com/mqrqv3d

The year 2013 has been a relatively lackluster one for e-discovery case law. Then, on November 12, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a rare appellate order on sanctions and e-discovery abuse.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Texas’ Backlog of Federal Judicial Vacancies.

29 Sunday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judges, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Texas’ Backlog of Federal Judicial Vacancies.

Tags

Federal Judges, How Appealing, Howard Bashman, Judges, Nuclear option, Senate, Texas Supreme Court, United States Senate, White House

English: Seal of Texas

Senate’s ‘Nuclear Option’ Won’t Help Clear Backlog Of Texas Judicial Vacancies, by Todd J. Gillman, The Dallas Morning News (with hat tip to Howard Bashman, How Appealing Blog!)

http://tinyurl.com/mxklpsw

Federal courts that handle Texas cases have nine vacancies and until last week, no nominees, accounting for more than 20 percent of empty benches nationwide. One of those came open more than five years ago.

The predictable result: backlogs and delays, especially in civil cases.

“The nuclear option will not change the logjam. The White House is not going to nominate anyone from Texas until it’s clear the senators will approve them,” said Royal Furgeson, dean of the University of North Texas Law School in Dallas, planned to open next year.

He called the persistent vacancies ‘a giant problem,’ and he would know; he’s the judge who stepped down in November 2008 from a San Antonio trial court.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Texas Moves To Its New E-Filing Website.

06 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Courts, E-Filing, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Texas Moves To Its New E-Filing Website.

Tags

Courts, E-Filing, EFILETEXAS.gov, Texas Supreme Court

We’ve moved! New e-filing website goes live, posted by Angela Morris, Texas Lawyer in Texas Law

http://shererandcrow.com/texas-law/weve-moved-new-e-filing-website-goes-live/

The state’s new system for electronically filing court documents has a new online home: EFileTexas.gov went live today, Dec. 6.

Starting Monday, the old site to access the e-filing system will go offline and anyone who visits TexFile.com will automatically be rerouted to EFileTexas.gov, according to a notice on TexFile.com.

 

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Trial of Historical Patent for Common Web Encryption of SSL in East Texas.

24 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in E-Discovery, Evidence, Intellectual Property, Legal Technology, Patent Law, Texas Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Trial of Historical Patent for Common Web Encryption of SSL in East Texas.

Tags

Amazon, Dennis Crouch, East Texas, Encryption, Erich Spangenberg, Michael Jones, Newegg, Patent, Ron Rivest, SSL, TQP

Newegg on trial: Mystery company TQP rewrites the history of encryption, by Joe Mullin, Law & Disorder/Civilization & Discontents (with hat tip to Dennis Crouch’s Patently-O!)

http://tinyurl.com/

The story of Michael Jones, his mysterious invention, and the massive patent enforcer he’s working with is finally coming out at a patent trial underway in this small East Texas town.

Jones’ patent, now owned by famed patent enforcer Erich Spangenberg, has scared corporate America into writing one hefty check after another to avoid a trial just like this one. He and his lawyers say the patent covers the common web encryption scheme of SSL combined with the RC4 algorithm. The sums of those checks were revealed in court here on Tuesday when a TQP attorney displayed to the jury a spreadsheet with many of the payments.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Judge Sparks on Fire — Again.

23 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Depositions, Discovery, Judges, Legal Writing, Subpoenas, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Judge Sparks on Fire — Again.

Tags

Above the Law (blog), David Lat, Depositions, Discovery, Judge Sam Sparks, Law Practice, Privilege and Confidentiality, Subpoenas, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Benchslap of the Day: Judge Sparks Burns More Attorneys , by By David Lat, Above the Law

http://tinyurl.com/45y5v3z

Mr. Lat shared this excerpt from the Judge’s Order:

[J]udge Sparks invited lawyers to a hearing that he referred to as a ‘kindergarten party.’ According to the ‘invitation’ — er, order — ‘[t]he party will feature many exciting and informative lessons, including… how to enter into reasonable agreements about deposition dates [and] how to limit depositions to reasonable subject matter.’ The event is aimed at lawyers who ‘are unable to practice law at the level of a first year law student.’

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Yes, You Can. No, You Can’t. The Latest Abortion Battle in Texas.

29 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, State Appellate Courts, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Yes, You Can. No, You Can’t. The Latest Abortion Battle in Texas.

Tags

Abortion law, Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court

Judge in Texas Partly Rejects Abortion Law, by Erik Eckholm, The New York Times
http://nyti.ms/Hon5aE

 But not so fast . . . .

Texas attorney general asks court to reinstate abortion measure, by Karen Brooks, Reuters, in Chicago Tribune
http://trib.in/17qFgZx

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 454 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: