Comments on: Order List for October 10, 2008 http://www.scotxblog.com/orders/order-list-for-october-10-2008/ Legal Issues Before the Texas Supreme Court Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:30:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Don Cruse http://www.scotxblog.com/orders/order-list-for-october-10-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-596 Don Cruse Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:41:40 +0000 http://www.scotxblog.com/?p=446#comment-596 <p>You're right that the thought crossed my mind. But, on reflection, I don't think this case really supports it. </p> <p>This was a pretty subtle change. And my suspicion is that the <em>Kerlin</em> revised opinion is what the Court meant to say all along. (The revision is certainly more consistent with the concluding paragraph, which talks about the longarm statute.)</p> <p>What this case does illustrate is how cases in the Texas Supreme Court can be of great importance to litigants handling cases in other courts, such as the Fifth Circuit.</p> You’re right that the thought crossed my mind. But, on reflection, I don’t think this case really supports it.

This was a pretty subtle change. And my suspicion is that the Kerlin revised opinion is what the Court meant to say all along. (The revision is certainly more consistent with the concluding paragraph, which talks about the longarm statute.)

What this case does illustrate is how cases in the Texas Supreme Court can be of great importance to litigants handling cases in other courts, such as the Fifth Circuit.

]]> By: D. Todd Smith http://www.scotxblog.com/orders/order-list-for-october-10-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-595 D. Todd Smith Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:27:34 +0000 http://www.scotxblog.com/?p=446#comment-595 <p>Supports your observation that the end-of-term push leads to more mistakes requiring correction later, doesn't it? Though, as you point out, it's somewhat odd that these changes came without a motion for rehearing.</p> Supports your observation that the end-of-term push leads to more mistakes requiring correction later, doesn’t it? Though, as you point out, it’s somewhat odd that these changes came without a motion for rehearing.

]]>