In this edition of Litigation Roundup, Texas reaches a tentative settlement with Colorado and New Mexico in a nearly decade-old lawsuit over use of the Lower Rio Grande River’s resources, two major tobacco companies say Texas owes them about $8.6 million in taxes paid under protest, and another trial between VLSI and Intel kicks off.
The Fourth Court of Appeals said the case should not have been dismissed last year for want of prosecution at a time when civil jury trials were not available in Kerr County. The case involves Utopia lawyer Patricia Skelton’s claim against her criminal defense lawyer, which previously survived a dismissal when the Texas Supreme Court allowed Skelton to prove her innocence in the malpractice case.
About 75 lawyers attended in-person or online a CLE that delved into enforcement priorities at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Fort Worth Regional Office, what impact recent Fifth Circuit decisions could have on SEC actions, and how to navigate clients through uncertain times during an increase in rulemaking initiatives.
In the case that pits a group of cotton farmers against Helena Chemical Co., the Texas Supreme Court justices focused much of the questioning during oral argument Wednesday morning on the intricacies of the evidentiary standard Helena is asking the court to adopt. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a brief in favor of Helena, while the farmers garnered amicus support from the Texas Wine and Grape Growers Association and the High Plains Wine & Food Foundation.
The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could lay out the rules for deciding how to read a drilling lease’s force majeure clause. The case involves a driller’s response to unforeseen circumstances and its miscalculation of a deadline.
The Texas Supreme Court will decide whether Jim Crane can proceed with his lawsuit over the allegedly inflated price he paid for the stake in a regional sports network. Two lower courts have denied bids by the team’s former owner and Comcast to end the lawsuit. Michelle Casady tuned into oral arguments Tuesday as the Houston Astros prepare for Game 1 of the World Series.
Dallas District Judge Tonya Parker announced Monday that she intends to seek election to an upcoming opening on the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas.
Judge Parker, a widely respected trial judge who consistently ranks among the top three judges for judicial temperament and legal knowledge by Dallas Bar Association members, sent an email to supporters stating that she has been “seriously considering a run for court of appeals” for some time.
WWHD? — Should the Question ‘What Would Hamilton Do?’ Inform the Fifth Circuit’s Separation-of-Powers Jurisprudence?
Seven federal courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, have rejected arguments that federal financial regulators should not be funded by assessments made outside the usual budgeting process. The reasoning was those fundings are done pursuant to acts of Congress.
The Fifth Circuit in Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau saw matters otherwise and cited several drafters of the Constitution, including the ubiquitous Alexander Hamilton.
Ed Sullivan and Sam Kaplan (pictured center) have been friends for 30 years, beginning when they met at the University of Texas as undergraduates. Later they both decided to become lawyers.
Their friendship continued but never as intensely as it did this year, while working together on a case that would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, argued Oct. 12, was Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, a dispute about whether highly paid employees are eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is an important issue for the oil and gas industry. The case was brought by Michael Hewitt, a “tool-pusher” on an offshore oil rig. Other amicus briefs indicated that the outcome of the case could affect a range of organizations including nursing.
In an order issued Wednesday, the court vacated a panel’s Aug. 3 ruling that ended the lawsuit and set the case for rehearing before the entire court. The three-judge panel that issued the original ruling siding with Dallas County called for en banc review in the opinion, lamenting that court precedent mandated dismissal of the suit challenging a gender-based scheduling policy.