The Texas Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in two cases on Wednesday and three cases on Thursday. Among the Wednesday arguments is the Edwards Aquifer water-rights dispute that could have significant implications for the ability of state government to regulate water use. The Thursday arguments will be held at UT Law School.

Click through for excerpts the Court’s summaries of the issues in these five cases

The Texas Supreme Court is hearing oral argument on Tuesday, February 15th in two cases: City of Dallas v. Stewart, No. 09-0257 (docket and briefs) (a takings case involving the City’s demolition of a house determined to be a nuisance) and Jefferson State Bank v. Lenk (asking what liability a bank has for paying out estate funds to someone posing as the estate administrator).

Read more

The challenge to Texas’s parental-termination system in the US Supreme Court, which I first wrote about in this post, has come to a quiet end.

The case became notable when the US Supreme Court formally called for the views of the Texas state solicitor general, believed to be the first such request. The Texas SG did file that invitation brief, recommending that the Court deny review. With today’s order list (PDF), the Court did.

Most commentary about today’s Citizens United decision will focus on congressional and presidential elections.

But the decision may hit closer to home. Professor Rick Hasen brings some attention to the effect that Citizens United may have on judicial elections, especially in light of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal:

The ways out of this box are not easy to see. Corporate spending limits are effectively off the table. Disclosure alone is unlikely to get enough attention, particularly for a public that pays scant attention to judicial races. Recusal motions against particular judges are going to be hard to win.

The most direct way “out of this box” might be for individual judges to be more concrete (and public) about their recusal policies. That’s not an institutional answer, but it is one completely within the control of the judicial branch. A recusal policy that is easy for voters to understand would also be easy for voters to police.

Update: There is a related post over at First One @ One First, which has some extended quotations from the Citizens United dissent. That blog promises coverage of a panel discussion on this question next Tuesday at Georgetown Law including (among other luminaries) former Chief Justice Tom Phillips.

The Texas Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in three cases on Thursday, January 21.

One case involves the Texas Equine Activity Act, which creates a limited immunity for horse owners. Another involves proof needed to get an attorneys’ fee sanction under the medical-malpractice statute.

Read more

The Texas Supreme Court is hearing arguments in three cases on Wednesday, November 20th.

The most interesting might be its juvenile-justice case, which asks if a child too young to consent to sex can nonetheless form the criminal intent necessary to commit prostitution. (( The Texas Supreme Court has jurisdiction over juvenile-justice cases, while all other criminal proceedings go instead to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. ))

The other two cases involve proving causation of medical injuries.

Read more

The Texas Supreme Court is hearing oral argument in three cases on Tuesday, November 19.

Does a tow company have a vested property interest in the cars it has towed?

City of Dallas v. VSC, LLC, No. 08-0265 [more info].

The Dallas police department took possession of some towed cars that were alleged to have been stolen or involved in criminal activity. The tow-truck company sued, arguing that this was a taking of its property interest in the vehicles. The city argues in part that this action falls within its police power.

The Texas Solicitor General’s office was asked to (and later did) file an amicus brief in this case.

Does a school district have to ask permission to challenge an unfavorable employment decision of the state education commissioner?

Presidio Independent School District v. Robert Scott, Commission of Education, No. 08-0958 [more info].

In some employment disputes between an educator and their school district, the employee can file an appeal with the Commissioner of Education. That happened here, and the commissioner ruled in favor of the employee. The school district sought to challenge the commissioner’s ruling in district court. The commissioner invoked immunity, arguing that the statute requires that he grant permission before such a suit can be filed.

Contract dispute with a water authority

Kirby Lake Development Ltd. v. Clear Lake Water Authority, No. 08-1003 [more info].

A development company had an agreement with a water authority for the authority to purchase some assets. Ultimately, the authority decided not to go forward. The development company sued, arguing that the water authority was bound by the contract to hold a bond election and go forward. The water authority argued that suit was barred by immunity and that, in any event, it had not breached the contract.

The Texas Supreme Court is off to a quick start.

Its first petition of the new year, docket number 10-0001, has already been resolved.

The petition was a mandamus action styled In re Memorial Hermann Healthcare System out of Harris County. According to the Court’s docket page, the petition sought an emergency stay. When the Court denied the stay, it denied the petition on its merits at the same time.