I’ve been rolling out a steady stream of updates to the DocketDB site. I shared some of these at the recent Practicing Before the Supreme Court of Texas CLE. Since that time, I’ve added a new way to present the Court’s opinions.

Front-page search

The DocketDB home page now has a search box in the top right. Just start typing part of the name of a pending or recent case — and autocomplete will find the docket number for you.

It’s a small feature, but even I am finding it much easier to use DocketDB as the first stop in looking up a pending case. Once there, you can quickly find the slip opinions, the relevant court of appeals information, briefs from the case, or the most recent events.

Issues/Granted

A persistent question is how to track what issues are pending. This is a project that all court-watchers do in our own ways. But I realized that the DocketDB engine would be a good platform for a community effort.

If you go to http://docketdb.com/issues/granted, you’ll see the early results. This collects keyword tags about the pending cases in which the Court has granted review. (It’s focused on the granted petitions and those that have been submitted after oral argument.) Click on a tag, and you’ll be taken to a list of the relevant cases, with the usual links to news articles, briefs, and the most current status of the case.

My hesitation in rolling out this feature is that I don’t want to create a job for myself. (( Well, I didn’t want to create another job for myself. )) So, as I said at the Practicing Before the Supreme Court seminar, I’m approaching this “Issues/Granted” page as a community feature. I am happy to supply the platform and to keep the underlying data about each case fresh.

But the keywords require a human touch. Anyone registered with DocketDB can help tend this garden by adding relevant tags, and I hope you will participate. If enough of you pitch in just a little time, we all benefit. (( If you have questions about how this keyword system works, feel free to email me or give me a call. ))

To help everyone stay on the same page, there is now an autocomplete feature when you enter a tag — just start typing a new tag, and you’ll see what related keywords are already in the database.

An integrated version of the Court’s opinions

As you know, the Court publishes its opinions both as raw HTML files and as PDF slip opinions. In the past, I have linked to the HTML version on the Court’s website, which redirected your browser to that page.

Starting this week, DocketDB is now republishing these opinions. Here’s an example or two. And here’s why:

• Readability: The Court’s HTML version is generated by a word processor, and the result is text that wraps edge-to-edge on the screen. It’s often frustrating to read; I find myself re-sizing the browser window nearly every time. I opted to have a single-column of text that’s a more readable width.

• Related opinions: My version collects all opinions from the same case along the sidebar — so you can quickly access a concurrence or dissent.

• Faces: Everybody likes faces.

• Warnings for withdrawn or at-risk opinions: My version gives you a warning if an opinion has been withdrawn (or rehearing has been granted). It gives you a gentler warning if a rehearing motion is still pending. These notices are kept up-to-date by the DocketDB database.

• Link to the PDF: If you want to download the PDF version, there’s a direct link from the HTML page. You no longer have to backtrack to find it.

• Quicker access to other DocketDB resources: You are now just a click away from links to related news stories, the underlying court of appeals information, or a list of the electronic briefs.

Those are the initial benefits. I’m also excited about the other, more advanced features that this should make possible. Your input is appreciated and, as always, you’ll be the first to know.

According to a notice posted on the Texas Supreme Court’s website, true electronic filing of appellate briefs is now available in that court:

Effective March 28, 2011, you may electronically file documents, pay your fees, and serve opposing counsel using the Texas.gov electronic filing system.

Using this e-filing system is, at this time, still voluntary. I look forward to trying it out.

Some paper is still required

Please be aware that the electronic-filing order still requires counsel to send two paper copies of the brief to the clerk’s office.

As things stand, counsel in the Texas Supreme Court have two choices — both of which require some mix between electronic and paper copies:

• Use the electronic-filing portal to file and serve a PDF that counts as the official original, plus submit two paper copies to the clerk’s office.

• Submit an original paper version plus eleven more paper copies to the clerk’s office, serve them on opposing counsel, and also submit the required PDF by email to the clerk’s office.

So while this new e-filing order isn’t strictly paperless, it is a big step in that direction. As a solo appellate lawyer, I certainly look forward to simplifying my workflow on the days briefs are due.

The Texas Supreme Court issued two sets of orders today related to e-filing of appellate briefs in Texas.

1. Effective March 14, 2011: In the Texas Supreme Court, parties now have a choice whether to make a traditional paper filing plus an e-brief, or whether instead to choose electronic filing through an approved provider and then submit just two copies (for most briefs). The acceptable format of an e-brief remains largely unchanged from before. For now, the e-filing is voluntary. (( If you go the traditional route, the e-brief is due the same day as the paper briefs are filed. If you go the e-filing route, your paper copies can be submitted the next day. )) You can get the order about SCOTX filings here.

2. In the courts of appeals, the Court has now brought standardization to what just a few weeks ago I noted was a quite confusing situation. Through an amendment to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, there is now a standard local rule for courts of appeals to adopt if they want to accept courtesy e-briefs or to opt into the statewide e-filing system. You can get the order amending the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure & setting out these form local rules here.

There may be a transition period as courts of appeals decide how they want to ease out of their own practices into these new local rules. (( Normally, courts of appeals must submit new local rules for formal approval by the Supreme Court. I assume that is also necessary if a court of appeals wants to adopt one of these form rules. )) But the new rules will make sorting things out much easier. Going forward, if a court of appeals accepts e-briefs, then you must prepare it in the same manner that you would for the Texas Supreme Court.

I’m sure that I will have more to say about these rules over time. For now, I just wanted to pass along the news.

Thursday’s meeting of the Austin bar appellate section featured a panel of Texas Supreme Court Justices. The panel included Justice Nathan Hecht, Justice Phil Johnson, and the Court’s newest member, Justice Lehrmann. The moderator was former Justice Brister.

The format was Q&A, with a few topics that should be of interest to readers of this blog.

Read some highlights from the panel

Last week, the Office of Court Administration released its official 2010 statistics page. On that list is the “Supreme Court Activity” document that is the focus of so much attention by court-watchers.

What do these statistics mean for you?

I’ve marked some highlights on this version of the document. In short:

• The most prolific author last term was Justice Green. We knew that he led the way with 12 signed majority opinions. Until these statistics were released, we did not know how many of the Court’s unsigned per curiam opinions he wrote. It turns out that he wrote 11 of them, for a total of 23 deciding opinions. (The next closest total was Chief Justice Jefferson at 14 deciding opinions.)

• Last term, the Court took in more causes than it decided. That marked a break from recent years in which the Court had been issuing more decisions. It also led to an increase in the number of causes carried over term-to-term.

• It’s very hard to get the Court to rehear a petition after it has made the initial choice to deny review. Last year’s grant rate seemed abnormally low at just 3.8% (7/185). This year, the number is down to 1.75% (2/171). The Court seems quite firm about its initial decisions to deny review.

• And if the Court doesn’t deny review, if it grants, it seems to have pretty firmly made up its mind that some modification of the decision below is necessary. The rate of affirmance is very low, with only 5 issued in the 2010 term, which works out to about 6% of the time the Court has granted review. (It would take a little more investigation to see what the percentage is for cases actually argued, because OCA does not break out cases by whether they were argued or not.)

So what do I tell my clients?

If you put those last two bullets together — decisions to deny are not second-guessed, and decisions to grant always never result in affirmance — you can see the importance placed on the merits briefs in a case. Once the law clerks have written their study memo and the Justices have taken that initial vote to grant, the train is moving and only a serious disruption can change the destination.

What does that mean for your clients? The lesson I would draw is: Take the request for merits briefing as seriously as you would a grant of review.

When your case is selected for merits briefing — especially if you are on the Respondent side — that is your last, best chance to rethink your approach.

The briefing request greatly increases the chances of a grant, and therefore of a reversal. If that increase in odds changes the economics of your appeal, it may be a time to explore settlement or it may justify additional counsel to help you make the strongest possible presentation.

We don’t have true e-filing yet in Texas appellate courts, but the Texas Supreme Court has just issued another order to inch the bar and court personnel in that direction.

In February, the Court started requiring a PDF with most substantive briefs — and set out detailed requirements about how those PDFs could be formatted. In May, the Court made some clarifications and for the first time required counsel to register for email notices and to serve these PDFs on opposing counsel.

The Court has just issued a new electronic-briefing order that broadens the set of papers that require an electronic version. Effective today, the order includes all substantive briefs (including amicus briefs), as well as:

(7) all motions, responses to motions, and replies in support of motions, except for motions for extension of time.

The old rule specified only two kinds of motions that required electronic versions (motions for rehearing and for emergency stay). The order’s new language goes much farther, and it makes explicit that response and reply briefs are included.

In Austin, August arrives with a weather forecast of 100-degree days. It leaves with the flurry of opinions the Texas Supreme Court traditionally issues right before the end of the month.

The official Texas court statistics run from September to September, so the end of August marks the last chance to get an opinion off the books before it rolls over.

Last September, I created some charts with Texas Supreme Court opinion statistics that lets you click through to see exactly which opinions caused a particular Justice to pen a dissent, concurrence, or majority.

Since then, I’ve added data for the current year, as well as a few previous years. The 2010 opinion statistics are up-to-date and ready for the last set of opinions. (( If you still see a column of question marks, that represents the per curiam opinions. We are never told precisely which Justice wrote each one, but the official statistics include the total number of per curiams each Justice wrote. Once the Office of Court Administration releases those totals, I add them to my chart. ))

It’s true that counting up each Justice’s opinions is a rather poor measure of their contribution to the work of the Court (as the Chief Justice has noted at recent conferences). As outsiders, we don’t see the collaborative work that Justices do helping each other.

But the opinion breakdown remains one of the most popular sets of court statistics.

As you’re starting up your office pool about which Justices will distinguish themselves in different categories, I would echo David Letterman’s admonition: “Remember, this is not a competition, it is only an exhibition — please, no wagering.”

The Court’s online calendar has now been updated to show argument sittings and conferences planned for the next term.

It shows the expected burst of conferences beginning in mid-August as the Court returns from its break. There are two-day conferences on August 16-17 and on August 23-24. We can expect a flurry of opinions on August 27, 2010, as the Court clears out what cases it can from the term that is ending.

Argument Sittings

Last week’s orders told us about the Court’s first two argument sittings (on Sept. 14-16, 2010 and Oct. 12-14, 2010), which have been assigned to the 18 pending cases that had accumulated during the late spring.

The calendar now shows the other argument dates expected for the year: Nov. 9-10, 2010; Dec. 7-9, 2010; Jan. 4-6, 2011; Feb. 1-3, 2011; and Mar. 1-3, 2011. If there are three arguments heard per day, that’s room for 42 more cases to be heard at oral argument next term.

Sixty oral arguments in a term does not sound like a high number, but this may just leave the Court room to expand the schedule as needed. (( Last year, the Court scheduled two separate three-day argument sittings for April 2010 but only filled one of them. This year, April is not included in the initial list. The Court can, of course, add argument sittings. )) Continued…