Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

"Texas Supreme Court rejects provision in law that protects one company from asbestos claims"

"Texas Supreme Court rejects provision in law that protects one company from asbestos claims": Yesterday's edition of The Dallas Morning News contained an article that begins, "The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday that a law specifically designed to protect one company from older asbestos claims was unconstitutional. The ruling in favor of a plaintiff was a bit of a surprise from the court, which has been criticized by trial lawyers for siding more often with business defendants in these kinds of cases."

And The Houston Chronicle reported yesterday that "Justices reject tort reform provision; Firm denied protection from asbestos suit."

Friday's ruling of the Supreme Court of Texas consisted of a majority opinion, two concurring opinions (here and here), and a dissenting opinion.

In particular, the concurring opinion written by Justice Don R. Willett makes for a very interesting read. It begins:

Litigants in our adversarial system are hard-wired for certitude, adept at insisting the law "clearly" or "plainly" favors their side or, as here, labeling the controlling analysis "straightforward and simple." If only. Today's case is both complex and consequential, and fiendishly so. The facts are compelling; the law is unclear; and the stakes are high, not just for these parties but also for our constitutional architecture that both confers and constrains governmental power.

Justice Willett's concurring opinion also contains a Star Trek reference (click on the footnote link for the citation), as "The Supreme Court of Texas Blog" has noted.

You can access the briefs on appeal via this link, and you can view video of the oral argument by clicking here.

Full post as published by How Appealing on October 24, 2010 (boomark / email).