One more note on National Gas Pipeline Co. v. Justiss is appropriate. The Texas Supreme Court held that the landowners had failed to present admissible evidence that the permanent nuisance caused by the defendant had diminished the value of their property. Normally, the loss of such a “no-evidence” point leads to the appellate court reversing … Continue Reading
Conditional settlement agreements between a plaintiff and a codefendant are nothing new. But when such an agreement is premised on the notion that the “settling” codefendant will continue to defend itself at trial, diminishing its own liability proportionately by increasing the liability of the other codefendants, it is against public policy. The term “Mary Carter … Continue Reading
Most litigators, whether trial lawyers or appellate specialists, are regularly asked to estimate the chances of a particular case result. So you can imagine the reaction in the legal blog world when four professors — Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Maria Hartwig, Par Anders Granhag and Elizabeth F. Loftus — published a study concluding that many lawyers may not … Continue Reading
Demonstrating the potential significance and broad implications of the California Supreme Court’s deliberations in Loeffler v. Target Corporation, so far a total of nine amicus briefs have been filed on behalf of sixteen entities addressing the issue of whether a taxpayer can directly bring suit against a retailer who allegedly charged a sales tax on … Continue Reading
What sets Sedgwick’s Appellate Group apart from the rest. Most appellate lawyers are passive: they read the trial record (viewing it as etched in stone, immutable). They research the law. They write the brief. They may be good at that, but they use a static, one-dimensional approach to what should be a creative, strategic process: … Continue Reading
