Scholars traditionally classify the statements in a judicial opinion as “holdings” (the reasons for a court’s decision) or “dicta” (additional discussion not necessary to the result, with varying precedential value depending on its thoroughness). But that distinction comes up short when applied to Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho’s recent concurrence in Defense Distributed v. Platkin. The concurrence—a courteous (though unenforceable) request to a district court in another circuit—is an unusual jurisprudential addition to the patchworks of holding and dicta that ordinarily fill the Federal Reporter.
More Stories
Texas Southern University Sued by Former Law Dean
Joan Bullock, the first woman dean of the historically Black university’s law school, says her abrupt dismissal in June was unexplained, undeserved and lacked due process. She is asking the court to enjoin the school from revoking her tenured teaching position until the facts surrounding the dismissal are heard by a faculty committee.
Jury Awards $95.5M in Case of Brain Damage Linked to Dentist Visit
The family of Nevaeh Hall sued the dentist, Bethaniel Jefferson, reaching a settlement with her insurer prior to trial, and also sued a pharmacist Charlotte M. Smith Brown, alleging she told Jefferson to administer an incorrect medication to Hall during the medical emergency. Brown drew Jefferson back into the lawsuit as a potentially liable party, and jurors found the dentist 100 percent liable for the injuries.
Does Adoption of AAA Rules Show Parties Wanted Arbitration? SCOTX Hears Arguments
Lawyers on opposing sides in a $41 million dispute over offshore drilling differ on the need for a new rule defining the meaning of standard arbitration rules in a contract on the gateway issue of arbitrability. Courts of appeals have split on the issue.
Talos Energy Acquires EnVen Energy for $1.1B
The cash-and-stock deal doubles the Talos presence in the Gulf of Mexico, adding 40% in production and substantial deepwater infrastructure in its current operational areas. Vinson & Elkins was involved, along with Gibson Dunn. The Lawbook has the names of the lawyers who advised.
Austin Jury Hits Meta with $174M Patent Infringement Verdict
A federal jury in Austin slapped Facebook and Instagram and its parent, Meta Platforms with a $174.5 million verdict Wednesday, finding that the social media giant infringed on patented technology developed by messaging app maker Voxer. The case is a win for law firms Quinn Emanual and Mann Tindel Thompson.
Texas Supreme Court Considers Walmart’s Bid to Revive $4M Xerox Suit
During oral arguments before the Texas Supreme Court Wednesday, Justice Jimmy Blacklock expressed some hesitation about the ramifications of adopting an argument from Walmart that it is a third-party beneficiary of a contract between the government and Xerox over the administration of a food-assistance program for low-income individuals.
Q&A with Devika Kornbacher: “Law helps you solve problems, engineering helps you build solutions”
The Texas Lawbook caught up with Devika Kornbacher last month when she left V&E after 15 years to join Clifford Chance as co-chair of the firm’s global technology group. In this interview, she talks about her upbringing, her time in the ministry and engineering, what inspired her to be a lawyer, what her mentor taught her and what she plans to accomplish at her new firm.
Dallas Judge Reduces $7.3 Billion Award in Murder of 83-Year-Old Charter Spectrum Customer
In his four-page judgment, Judge Juan Renteria stated that the plaintiffs “voluntarily remitted a substantial amount of the exemplary damages.”
With a Decision that May Lead to New Law, SCOTX Grapples with Two Cases in Which Ph.D. Revocations are Threatened
Texas Supreme Court justices give no hint whether the universities’ implied-powers argument can justify their efforts to rescind doctoral degrees awarded to former graduates for “academic misconduct.” In Texas, such revocation power has never been determined by reported appellate decisions and only a few revocations have been noted nationwide. The grads argue the universities have no express authority to do so. The AG says the power is implied from an express power to grant degrees. Behind that argument, due-process concerns linger in both cases.