Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann

Follow:

Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann Blogs

600 Camp
600 Commerce
600 Hemphill

Blog Authors

David Coale
David Coale

Latest from Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann

While this is a post about Texas state practice, I am cross-posting it from 600Commerce because it is of broad general interest to civil appellate practitioners.  With respect to court orders and judgments, the words “signed,” “rendered,” and “entered” are often used interchangeably. But those words have specific, technical meanings, and it is wise to remember those meanings when differences matter.  Accord, Burrell v. Cornelius, 570 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1978) (“Judges render judgment; clerks enter them on the minutes.  …  The entry of a judgment is the clerk’s record in the minutes of the court.  ‘Entered’ is synonymous with…
https-600commerce-com-wp-content-uploads-2019-08-texasdallas-jpg
Dallas-Fort Worth is the fourth largest metropolitan area in the United States, and it is only a matter of time until it passes Chicago to become #3. Dallas is routinely ranked among the nation’s best cities. Yet it is significantly underrepresented on the Texas Supreme Court. Hopefully, geographic diversity will play a role in the appointment of a successor to Justice Eva Guzman. The post Dallas is in North TEXAS appeared first on 600 Commerce.…
The able Rory Ryan of Baylor’s law school has Tweeted in detail about a recent district-court opinion on a thorny, and persistent, removal-jurisdiction issue. The case, which arose under a Texas Insurance Code provision with a specific procedure about claims against insurance agents, presented these facts: Plaintiffs sued their insurer, Chubb (who is diverse), and agent, Smith (who is non-diverse), in state court. Chubb then elected to accept whatever liability Smith might have, and the state court dismissed Smith. Chubb then removed the case under diversity jurisdiction. Leading to this issue: “[I]n determining diversity jurisdiction, does the Court consider Smith’s…
https-600camp-com-wp-content-uploads-2021-06-notacat-bank-jpg
If MoneyGram is a “bank” under the applicable Internal Revenue Code provision, it can take a large deduction that it cannot otherwise take. The Fifth Circuit did not agree with its claim to be a bank: “MoneyGram contends that when a customer buys a money order, the customer is placing funds with MoneyGram for safekeeping, at least until such time as the recipient of the money order presents it for payment. The tax court rejected this argument, likening a money order to the purchase of a gift card rather than a deposit in a bank account. We agree.” MoneyGram Int’l …
Continuing a series of Retail Services WIS Corp. v. Crossmark, Inc., a preliminary-injunction case, the Fifth Court examined how the injunction addressed electronic information: Weekley involved rule 196.4 discovery rather than a temporary injunction and was not a trade secrets case. Appellants cite no authority mandating Weekley’s application here and we have found none. Further, the law governing mandatory injunctive relief is consistent with Weekley’s requirement that ‘trial courts should be mindful of protecting sensitive information and utilize the least intrusive means necessary to facilitate discovery of electronic information.’  As described above, rule 683 requires an injunction order to…
In the case of In the Estate of Johnson, the supreme court reaffirmed a strict approach to the “acceptance of benefits” defense in will contests: “MacNerland was put to an election: either seek to set the will aside or accept the benefits Johnson bequeathed to her. She chose the latter. As a result, she ‘must adopt the whole contents of the instrument, so far as it concerns [her], conforming to its provisions, and renouncing every right inconsistent with it.’ Because MacNerland accepted benefits under Johnson’s will, the trial court properly dismissed her challenge to its validity.” (citation omitted). The…
This post follows up on a recent post about Retail Services WIS Corp. v. Crossmark, Inc., a preliminary-injunction case involving the alleged misuse of trade secrets. The Fifth Court identified problems with the emphasized terms in various parts of a temporary-injunction order (some of which were repeated throughout the order): “The Court further finds that the CROSSMARK Confidential Information and Trade Secrets and other confidential and proprietary business information of CROSSMARK and business relationships of CROSSMARK are assets belonging solely to CROSSMARK.” “For purposes of this Temporary Injunction, ‘Covered Clients and Customers’  means those persons or entities that CROSSMARK…
The Fifth Circuit harmonized two insurance-policy provisions in Miller v. Reliance Std. Ins. Co.: “[T]he phrase ‘active, full-time’ employees must be construed in the insured’s favor to include those who, on the relevant date, are current employees even if not actually working. We also agree that the term ‘regular work week’ must be construed to refer to an employee’s job description, or to his typical workload when on duty.   To hold otherwise, as Reliance urges, would render the second paragraph of the Transfer Provision virtually redundant with the first. On Reliance’s reading, the paragraph would cover employees who…
https-600commerce-com-wp-content-uploads-2021-06-wethepeople-jpg
Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution provides: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” That principle animates the two sides of Toyota Motor Sales v. Reavis, No. 05-19-00075-CV (June 3, 2021), in which a 2-1 Fifth Court majority affirmed a $200+…
https-600commerce-com-wp-content-uploads-2021-06-weather-road-snip-6-2-2021-1-png
The Greeks saw the all-powerful Zeus as the god of the skies; Haitian vodou, the storm-spirit Agau; and so forth throughout all the world’s cultures. Despite that tradition, the Fifth Court reversed a jury instruction that posed the following comparative-fault question:         “Though the jury here made no finding that the occurrence was proximately caused by the acts or omissions of more than one person, question number two of the charge allowed the jury to find a ‘percentage of the negligence’ attributable to ‘Weather/Road Conditions,’ which was not a person or party whose negligence was found…