New Fifth Circuit blog
David Coale, former head of the State Bar appellate section, has started a new blog about the Fifth Circuit. It’s called 600 Camp, after the address of the John Minor Wisdom Courthouse in New Orleans.
Mandatory appellate mediation turns out to be mandatory
Disputing has a post about what happens when a party walks out before a court-ordered appellate mediation has run its course. The title gives away the ending: “Texas Court of Appeals Dismisses Appeal Because Appellant Walked Out of the Court-Ordered Mediation”
This happened in the Waco Court of Appeals. The court’s notice specified that dismissal would follow if the appellant did not attend the mediation. The court’s opinion is here.
Election season is underway
Morgan Smith of the Texas Tribune has the first piece I’ve seen about the 2012 court elections. Her story is about former Justice Steve Smith’s filing to, once again, run against Justice Willett for the Republican nomination.
Oral Arguments This Week
You can check out past and current arguments on the St. Mary’s video archives page.
Tuesday
-
SafeShred, Inc. v. Louis Martinez, III, No. 10-0426. Are there exemplary damages for a Sabine Pilot claim (wrongful firing for an employee refusing to do an illegal act) and, if so, was the amount of exemplary damages awarded here excessive? (>> earlier post)
-
Shell Oil Company, et al. v. Ralph Ross, No. 10-0429. Broadly, the case is about how the statute of limitations applies to royalty claims when there is an allegation of fraudulent concealment.
-
Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Maximino Garza, No. 10-0435. A Jones Act (maritime) case about how to divide responsibility between the worker and the employer. >> earlier post
Wednesday
-
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America v. William Justiss, et al., No. 10-0451. In a nuisance claim about a reduction in property value alleged to have been caused by the gas pipeline: (1) how much worse must the condition get to re-start the statute of limitations and (2) what evidence is proper to show the reduction in property value? A potentially much broader issue here is the petitioner’s request for the Court to limit the “property owner rule” that (traditionally) lets an owner testify as to its value without the need to hire an expert witness.
-
Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. The State Of Texas and the Texas Water Development Board, No. 10-0491. Can the State’s actions, which were alleged to have directly interfered with the issuance of a federal permit, constitute a taking under state law? >> earlier Texas Tribune article
-
Matthew W. Wasserman, M.D. v. Christina Bergeron Gugel, No. 10-0513. Do “health care liability claims” include allegations of assault or sexual assault by health-care providers? >> earlier post
Thursday
-
Port Elevator-Brownsville, LLC V. Rogelio Casados, et al., No. 10-0523. Does the bar against lawsuits created by the workers compensation law apply equally to suits by temporary workers?
-
In re United Scaffolding, Inc., No. 10-0526. How much specificity is needed in an order granting a new trial based on the great weight of the evidence?
-
Rusk State Hospital v. Dennis Black, et al., No. 10-0548. What should courts do when a government agency raises sovereign immunity during a limited interlocutory appeal challenging something completely different?
1 response so far ↓
1 Byron Buchanan // Nov 12, 2011 at 9:09 am
Port Elevator-Brownsville, LLC V. Rogelio Casados, et al., No. 10-0523, is a case that for some reason is getting very little attention. This case has far reaching implications for temporary workers injured while performing work on a client company’s property, and have no workers compensation coverage, from either the property owner of temporary worker agency. Notwithsatnding the fact Mr. Casados was killed while under the direction and control of Port Elevator, and no workers compensation was available to him, the Petitioner is asking the Supreme Court to establish a bar to recovery basd on the fact that Port Elevator had workers compensation insurance for its regular workers. It is undisputed Port Elevator paid no premiums for comp comp coverage. It is also undisputed that neither Port Elevator or the comp carrier ever intended to cover temporary workers like Mr. Casados. The proposition urged by Port Elevator seems rediculous, but the fact the Court agreed to hear the case raises some very significant concerns.