Waller I.S.D. Bond Litigation Draws To a Close, Sort Of

The Houston Chronicle has an article reporting on the Texas Supreme Court’s dismissal on Friday of the remaining petition that involved the Waller I.S.D.’s bond issue [previous coverage here and here]. Here is how the article ends:

His attorney, Ty Clevenger, called Friday’s Supreme Court decision disappointing. Clevenger said he is drafting a motion for emergency relief and a temporary restraining order in federal court.

“I guess it’s going to fall to the federal court to do the state’s job,” he said.

Bond opponents have three other cases pending in state courts, as well as a federal lawsuit, but lawyers on both sides acknowledge those lawsuits are unlikely to cause more delays.

Officials with the state Attorney General’s Office repeatedly have said they won’t sign off on the sale of public securities until all state legal challenges regarding the validity of the election are resolved.

Baylor Touts Amicus Filing in El Paso Hospital Case

Baylor has issued a press release crediting Professor Ron Beal with influencing the Texas Supreme Court’s grant of rehearing in El Paso Hospital District v. Texas Health & Human Services Commission.

Professor Beal has also submitted an amicus brief supporting rehearing in Igal v. Brightstar [previous coverage here], in which the motion for rehearing remains pending.

The Court’s “Wrongful Life” Decision from 2002 in the Boston Newspaper

The Boston Globe has an article titled “When Science Meets the Soul” that includes a brief mention of the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. HCA, Inc., No. 01-0079 [opinion here], in which the Court concluded that there was no cause of action under Texas law for a doctor saving the life of an infant (“wrongful life”). (This is a long feature article; search for “Texas” to see the brief mention.)

And the Texarkana Court’s Anonymous-Blogger Case Continues

I had an earlier posting about the Texarkana Court’s recent anonymous-blogger decision, which left open the possibility that the defamation plaintiff might make a better showing in the trial court on remand. The Paris News reports (registration may be required) on a hearing in the case that occurred Wednesday in the district court. The health center still contends that it needs the identity of the blogger to establish its case; the defendants unsurprisingly still claim that the health center has yet to show the requisite harm to overcome a First Amendment objection.