In re James Allen Hall, No. 07-0322 (DocketDB)

Most attorneys never encounter it, but the Texas Supreme Court does have jurisdiction over a special slice of criminal law — juvenile justice cases. (The others, of course, go to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.)

Here, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a former juvenile held over as an adult (to complete a 40-year sentence for capital murder) had the right to an appointed lawyer for a habeas corpus proceeding.

Read more details

And the folks at SCOTUSblog have chosen it as a “petition to watch” for the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 1, 2009 conference. (( Most results of that conference will be released by the Court the next Monday, May 4th. ))

Update: SCOTUS denied the petition in this order list (PDF).

This appeal questions the constitutionality of Texas’s system for taxing out-of-state title insurers. The Supreme Court of Texas divided 5-4 in the case, with the majority opinion by Justice Willett here and the dissenting opinion by Justice Hecht here.

The docket sheet for the U.S. Supreme Court is here. The DocketDB page from the case’s time at the Texas Supreme Court is here.

The Fifth Circuit has been hearing a challenge to the constitutionality of the Texas Open Beaches Act (Wikipedia or Statutes).

Yesterday, a panel of the Fifth Circuit, divided 2-1 (with Chief Judge Jones and Judge Clement in the majority), certified three questions in the case to the Texas Supreme Court:

1. Does Texas recognize a “rolling” public beachfront
   access easement, i.e., an easement in favor of the public
   that allows access to and use of the beaches on the Gulf
   of Mexico, the boundary of which easement migrates
   solely according to naturally caused changes in the
   location of the vegetation line, without proof of
   prescription, dedication or customary rights in the
   property so occupied?

2. If Texas recognizes such an easement, is it
   derived from common law doctrines or from a
   construction of the [Open Beaches Act]?

3. To what extent, if any, would a landowner be
   entitled to receive compensation (other than the
   amount already offered for removal of the houses)
   under Texas’s law or Constitution for the limitations on
   use of her property effected by the landward migration
   of a rolling easement onto property on which no public
   easement has been found by dedication, prescription, or
   custom?

Judge Wiener’s dissent (same PDF, at page 22) suggests that the case should have been dismissed for lack of Article III standing by the plaintiff (Severance):

And it matters not whether Ms. Severances role in this litigation is genuinely that of the fair Dulcinea whose distress the Foundation cum knight errant would alleviate or, instead, is truly that of squire Sancho Panza assisting the Foundation cum Don Quixote to achieve its goal: Either way, the panel majority’s reversal of the district court (whose rulings against Severance I would affirm) has the unintentional effect of enlisting the federal courts and, via certification, the Supreme Court of Texas, as unwitting foot-soldiers in this thinly veiled Libertarian crusade.

The case will now proceed to a new round of briefing on these questions, once the Texas Supreme Court accepts the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 58.6.

For those wondering, this will become the Texas Supreme Court’s only active certified-question case. The one most recently resolved by the Court was Financial Industries Corp. v. XL Specialty Insurance Co., No. 07-1059 (DB).

Update: The Pacific Legal Foundation has issued a public statement (PDF) taking issue with Judge Wiener’s “crusade” metaphor: “We do not regard our mission as “˜quixotic,’ or as an inevitable failure.”

More coverage: How Appealing and also Volokh Conspiracy.

The Texas Supreme Court has called for the views of the solicitor general (CVSG) in In re J.O.A., T.J.A.M., T.J.M., and C.T.M., Children, No. 08-0379 (order list). (( The Court’s language in this order was identical to that in its previous CVSG: “The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the State.”

And, like that previous case, the Court is asking the SG’s office to file a brief expressing “the views of the State” in a case in which a state agency is already a party. ))

What makes this case stand out is the timing. This case had already been submitted for decision — oral argument was held in mid-October, just over five months ago. Now is the time one would expect an early opinion draft to begin circulating among the chambers.

But the Court’s request for additional briefing suggests that the decision-making process is not yet complete. The parties should take note, as should any potential amicus curiae who may have felt that it was too late to assist the Court with this case.

A mandamus petition asking that question about Texas statutory probate courts is now pending in the Court. It also raises some question about the interaction between local rules, the statewide rules of civil procedure, and statutes.

Yesterday, the Texas Supreme Court granted an emergency stay and then asked for full briefing on the merits in In re The Honorable Guy Herman, No. 09-0109 (DB).

[Read more →]

In re Gayle E. Coppock, No. 08-0093. (DB) Issued February 13, 2009. Opinion by Justice O’Neill.

This is a case about enforcing a divorce decree that prohibited the formerly married partners from communicating with each other “in a coarse or offensive manner.” (Hard to imagine that would ever happen with divorced couples.)

The trial court found that Gayle Magness (formerly Gayle Coppock) had violated that provision 84 times, found her in contempt, and ordered sanctions that included incarceration for that violation. (( The trial court actually ordered three consecutive 180-day terms of incarceration, which would be waived if she reported for four nights of confinement and paid her ex-husband’s attorney’s fees. )) She did not show up at the appointed time and, instead, sought relief through the writ of habeas corpus. The Texas Supreme Court stayed her incarceration while considering her case.

[Read more →]

Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great American Lloyds Ins. Co., No. 06-0867. (DB) Issued February 13, 2009. Opinion by Justice Willett.

This is a dispute between a homebuilder and its insurance company over the duty to defend the homebuilder against lawsuits filed home buyers alleging construction defects. When the homebuilder (Pine Oak Builders) asked its insurer (Great American Lloyds) to pay for its defense, the insurer declined. The builder sued. The insurer counter-sued for a declaration that its policies did not cover these clams.

Read more

I ran across this blog post by a New York-based international-family-law attorney, Jeremy Morley, discussing a mandamus petition now pending in the Texas Supreme Court.

The case is In re Sigmar, No. 08-1025 (DB). And it concerns a trial court order requiring supervised visitation for a parent with strong ties to Mexico, based on findings that there was a risk of child abduction.

Read more about it