The Court issued one revised opinion and granted two new petitions for review in this week’s order list.
The revised opinion was in Kerlin v. Concepcion Sauceda, No. 05-0653, issued on August 29th (the Court’s big end-of-term order list).
Interestingly, this revised opinion was issued without any pending motion for rehearing. The Court’s original decision did prompt an amicus curiae brief from the State of Texas (filed on September 15th). But there was no formal request from a party for a different outcome or any changes in the opinion.
The new opinion makes one substantive change. The case involved whether a statute of limitations is tolled while a defendant is physically out of the state. The question was how Texas’s longarm statute affects that tolling — if a defendant could be sued under the longarm statute, is there a need to toll limitations?
The sentence summarizing the Court’s conclusion used to read:
But if a nonresident’s contacts with the state are sufficient to afford personal jurisdiction, as it is undisputed Kerlin’s were, then we can discern no reason why a nonresident’s “presence” in this state would not be established for purposes of the tolling statute.
In the new opinion it reads:
But if a nonresident
‘scontacts with the state aresufficient to afford personal jurisdiction, as it is undisputedKerlin ‘s were, then we can discern no reason why a nonresident’s “presence” in this state would not be established for purposes of the tolling statute.
The Court has thus made clear that, if Texas’s longarm statute does not reach a particular defendant, the tolling argument may still be available.