Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury
A 2026 rule amendment by the Texas Supreme Court mandates that petitions for review begin with an introduction of no more than 1,000 words explaining why review should be granted. At first glance, the rule seems sensible, given the hundreds of petitions that the court must promptly review every year. But that perceived benefit may be illusory.
The Texas Supreme Court recently adopted extensive amendments to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure that will have a dramatic effect on litigation before the Court.
Most notably, the Court all but eliminated its practice of requesting merits briefs before deciding whether to grant review of a case. Going forward, the Court will ordinarily decide whether to grant review, request merits briefs and schedule oral argument based on the petition-stage briefing alone. This combined decision now requires a minimum of four votes, whereas requesting merits briefing previously required only three.
Stephen Gilstrap, a six-year veteran of the U.S. attorney’s office, joins roughly 2 dozen lawyers who have left since the start of the year.
In this edition of Asked & Answered, Haynes Boone counsel Catherine Robb talks about media defamation cases and what drew her to a First Amendment practice. Robb also discusses her family’s legacy and what she hopes hers is.
The economic loss rule provides a limitation on damages in cases alleging both breach of contract and certain other causes of action sounding in tort, by precluding a party’s recovery of damages when the only economic loss is the subject matter of the contract. In operation, the rule "restricts contracting parties to contractual remedies for those economic losses associated with the relationship, even when the breach might reasonably be viewed as a consequence of a contracting party's negligence." This article explores this rule and when it applies — as well as the exceptions to it.
Pushing aside what’s already been reported — like the number of times Judge Jerry Smith wrote that he dissents (16), the number of times he calls out Judge Jeffrey Brown by name (279) and the number of times he references the Soros family (17) — The Lawbook asked more than a dozen appellate lawyers to weigh in on the aftermath: whether the tone of the dissent and the majority’s decision on the timing of the opinion’s release would have an impact on the judiciary, and the public’s opinion of the judiciary, moving forward.
In a five-sentence per curiam opinion issued Thursday morning, the First Court of Appeals in Houston declined to disturb rulings from a trial judge that allowed the law firm Ahmad Zavitsanos & Mensing to continue its defense of Transocean in multidistrict litigation stemming from offshore workers’ injuries. Lawyers from Arnold & Itkin, representing the plaintiffs, had argued the move was required and told The Texas Lawbook Thursday they are considering all options as it relates to a possible appeal.
Executives at Texaco woke up Nov. 20 — exactly 40 years ago today — like it was the morning after aliens attacked in the movie Independence Day. A day earlier, a Houston jury ruled the New York-based oil and gas giant had tortiously interfered with a 1984 agreement Getty Oil made to merge with Pennzoil and awarded Pennzoil $10.53 billion. Texaco’s stock took a beating — dropping from $80 per share when the litigation started to $32 the week following the trial. Some Wall Street analysts were openly warning about bankruptcy. The company’s convertible bonds plummeted in value. Texaco’s debt rating was cut by Standard & Poor’s. Interest accruing on the judgment was $2.8 million every single day.
Between Thanksgiving 1985 and Christmas 1987, the two energy companies and their ever-expanding roster of litigators did battle. The litigation itself multiplied, including a precedent-setting federal case in New York over Texaco’s appeals bond, a monumental appellate battle, a bizarre decision by the Texas Supreme Court, the world’s largest corporate bankruptcy at the time and a historic settlement.
Both sides hired major reinforcements — fresh legs and fresh eyes, if you will — as the trial teams had been going full speed for 21 straight months. The appeals team for Texaco beefed up with several heavy hitters from Fulbright & Jaworski and David Boies of Cravath in New York. Pennzoil added a Texas superstar in V&E’s Harry Reasoner and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School.
In Part II of our series looking back at the significance of the Pennzoil v. Texaco trial, The Lawbook examines the post-verdict appeals, which were historic and precedent-setting.
© Copyright 2026 The Texas Lawbook
The content on this website is protected under federal Copyright laws. Any use without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.
