With its orders list today, the Texas Supreme Court did not choose any new cases for argument or issue opinions. But it did reshuffle its argument calendar a bit.
All three of these were chosen for argument with last week’s orders (blog post):
The Court chose an argument date for In re Stephanie Lee, No. 11-0732: February 28, 2012.
It granted a motion to “reset” the argument in Combs v. Roark Amusement and Vending, L.P., No. 11-0261 (the case about arcade claw machines). It had been scheduled for February 28, 2012. No new date has been assigned.
And — for the second in the past two months — it denied a party’s request to reschedule oral argument. Without comment, the orders list notes that a request was filed in In re the Office of the Attorney General, No. 11-0255. It remains set for oral argument on February 27, 2012. (A similar request was denied on December 22, 2011 in Ashford Partners, Ltd. v. Eco Resources, Inc., No. 10-0615. On that orders list, Justice Guzman noted her dissent to the denial of the motion.)
In at least one regard, U.S. Supreme Court advocates have it easy. They know about the grant of review before the merits briefs are even filed, so they can block out preparation time — many go to the elaborate ends of participating in outside moot courts.
In the Texas Supreme Court, by contrast, there can be just a few weeks between the grant of review and the oral argument date. The lawyers in the four cases mentioned above were originally given about four weeks notice of the argument date.
With two of these motions being denied in recent months, I’m curious to know what reasons for rescheduling the Court is finding persuasive — and unpersuasive.