Here’s a copy of a motion to recuse four justices of the Texas Supreme Court, on account of what the mover describes as a defense bias in tort cases. Comments, anyone?
« CA1: all the ways to close off immigration review | Main | CA1: lawful aliens that leave, really do “enter” when they come back »
September 17, 2007
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2ca353ef00e54ef413538834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Plaintiff seeks recusal of four justices of Texas Supreme Court:
» Statistical bias as basis for recusal? from Appealing in Nevada
A plaintiff in Texas has moved to recuse four (out of nine) justices of the Texas Supreme Court, based upon a statistical analysis of Court opinions involving tort cases concluding there is a defense bias on the court. Click here... [Read More]
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
Recent Posts
- Giving it up.
- CA1: large law firm loses case on behalf of client
- CA1: It’s official. Everything is mail fraud.
- CA1: no preemption where no conflict – just assistance
- CA1: Drinking and driving isn’t accepting responsibility
- Another thing the Victims Rights Industry is Silent About
- CA1: proper punishment for a stalker that refused to retain a lawyer before not paying taxes
- CA1: what to do about a shooting of a mentally ill person
- CA1: surprise! creating false invoices to defraud Uncle Sam is corrupt
- CA1: making non-lawyers step outside hotel rooms okay
Recent Comments
- GUNUKUMAR on Giving it up.
- GUNUKUMAR on Giving it up.
- Gary Neal on CA1: proper punishment for a stalker that refused to retain a lawyer before not paying taxes
- Waqas Ahmed on Giving it up.
- Xbox360redring1 on Why Nieves-Castaño is wrong !
- Xbox360redring1 on Why Nieves-Castaño is wrong !
- Ting Wu on Public Comment Requested on electronic access:
- Sexy girl! on CA1: It’s official. Everything is mail fraud.
- Sexy girl! on CA1: It’s official. Everything is mail fraud.
- Sexy girl! on CA2: What the heck is going on in CA2 with coerced confessions
Categories
- AEDPA
- Antitrust
- Appellate Advocacy - Books & Articles
- Appellate Advocacy - CLEs & Seminars
- Appellate Advocacy - Tips
- Appellate News
- Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Big Cases
- Blawg Review
- Booker
- California Supreme Court
- Civil - Jurisdiction & Removal
- Civil - Liability
- Civil Forfeiture
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Torts (1983, Bivens, RLUIPA)
- Contracts
- Criminal - Defenses
- Criminal - Offenses
- Criminal - Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure
- Eighth Circuit
- Eleventh Circuit
- Evidence
- Fifth Circuit
- First Circuit
- Fourth Circuit
- General Torts
- Immigration
- Insurance
- Labor & Employment
- Legal Commentary
- Ninth Circuit
- Sanctions
- Second Circuit
- Securities
- Seventh Circuit
- Sixth Circuit
- Sixth Circuit - Criminal
- Tax Court
- Tenth Circuit
- Third Circuit
Legal Blogs
- Abstract Appeal
- Alaskablawg
- Appellate.net
- Begging The Question
- Blawg Review
- Bradley Parker
- Crime & Federalism
- Criminal Appeal
- CrimLaw
- Election Law
- Ex Post
- Federal Civil Practice Bulletin
- Greedy Clerks
- How Appealing
- Juris Novus
- Life, Law, Libido
- Minor Wisdom
- On Appeal
- Puerto Rico Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
- SCOTUSBlog
- Sentencing Law and Policy
- Southern Appeal
- Statutory Construction Zone
- TaxProf Blog
- The 10b-5 Daily
- Underneath Their Robes
- Virginia Appellate News & Analysis
Denied. I also think the writer is "to smart for his own good."
Posted by: Barry Mccarthy | September 21, 2007 at 11:39 PM