Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 31 - 41 of 41

Full-Text Articles in Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility

An Understanding Of Damages Recoverable Under The Dtpa., Deborah J. Bullion Jan 1989

An Understanding Of Damages Recoverable Under The Dtpa., Deborah J. Bullion

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Private Cause Of Action For Unfair Insurance Claim Settlement Practices Exists Under Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act And Insurance Code., Gloria F. Christmas Jan 1989

Private Cause Of Action For Unfair Insurance Claim Settlement Practices Exists Under Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act And Insurance Code., Gloria F. Christmas

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Vail v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, the Texas Supreme Court held a private cause of action for unfair insurance claim settlement practices exists under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Insurance Code (DTPA). The DTPA and Insurance Code have repeatedly been used against the insurance industry in the areas of first and third-party claims, particularly in cases involving sales misrepresentations and post-loss claims misconduct. The goal of DTPA is to provide adequate safeguards to aggrieved consumers and, therefore, a broad interpretation of the act allows the courts to provide consumers a remedy and deter the continuance …


The Relevancy Revolution In Criminal Law: A Practical Tour Through The Texas Rules Of Criminal Evidence., Cathleen C. Herasimchuk Jan 1989

The Relevancy Revolution In Criminal Law: A Practical Tour Through The Texas Rules Of Criminal Evidence., Cathleen C. Herasimchuk

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Judiciary's Inherent Power To Compel Funding: A Tale Of Heating Stoves And Air Conditioners., Ted Z. Robertson, Christa Brown Jan 1989

Judiciary's Inherent Power To Compel Funding: A Tale Of Heating Stoves And Air Conditioners., Ted Z. Robertson, Christa Brown

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.


A Proposal To Protect Injured Workers From Employers' Shield Of Immunity., Catherine A. Hale Jan 1989

A Proposal To Protect Injured Workers From Employers' Shield Of Immunity., Catherine A. Hale

St. Mary's Law Journal

The current workers’ compensation system shields negligent employers from liability and fails to encourage compliance with safety standards. A practical solution is to broaden the judicial definition of intentional conduct and reinstate a common-law negligence action in workers’ compensation statutes. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Act awards compensation to employees for accidental injuries sustained in the course of employment. The Act bars an employee who accepts these benefits from bringing a common-law suit for damages against the employer. The exclusive nature of the workers’ compensation remedy thus leaves employers immune from common-law negligence actions by employees who accept the plan. An …


Military Contractors Who Comply With Elements Of Government Contractor Defense Are Immune From Products Liability Suits Stemming From Design Defects., Matthew J. Sullivan Jan 1989

Military Contractors Who Comply With Elements Of Government Contractor Defense Are Immune From Products Liability Suits Stemming From Design Defects., Matthew J. Sullivan

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., the United States Supreme Court held military contractors who comply with the elements of the government contractor defense are immune from products liability suits stemming from design defects. Lower courts consider the government contractor defense to be a combination of two separate defenses. The first is the well-settled contract specification defense which eliminates liability for contractors who properly follow client supplied specifications. The second defense is the doctrine of shared sovereign immunity shielding the contractor from liability based on public policy concerns.

In Boyle, the Court held defective design of military equipment will not …


Causes Of Action Stemming From Federal Government's Negligence In Implementing Mandatory Regulations Or Statutes Are Not Barred By Discretionary Function Exception Of Federal Tort Claims Act., Irl I. Nathan Jan 1989

Causes Of Action Stemming From Federal Government's Negligence In Implementing Mandatory Regulations Or Statutes Are Not Barred By Discretionary Function Exception Of Federal Tort Claims Act., Irl I. Nathan

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.


The Federal Courts Study Committee Begins Its Work., Joseph F. Weis Jr. Jan 1989

The Federal Courts Study Committee Begins Its Work., Joseph F. Weis Jr.

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.


Civil Rico: Overview On The Eve Of The 200th Anniversary Of The Federal Judiciary., Dan A. Naranjo, Edward L. Pina Jan 1989

Civil Rico: Overview On The Eve Of The 200th Anniversary Of The Federal Judiciary., Dan A. Naranjo, Edward L. Pina

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.


Technology Transfers: What If The Other Party Files Bankruptcy., Ann Livingston, Leif M. Clark Jan 1989

Technology Transfers: What If The Other Party Files Bankruptcy., Ann Livingston, Leif M. Clark

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.


D.W.I. Suspects Do Not Have Right To Consult With Counsel Before Intoxilyzer Test Under Texas Constitution Because Test Is Not A Critical Stage In Proceedings., Clifford C. Herberg Jr. Jan 1989

D.W.I. Suspects Do Not Have Right To Consult With Counsel Before Intoxilyzer Test Under Texas Constitution Because Test Is Not A Critical Stage In Proceedings., Clifford C. Herberg Jr.

St. Mary's Law Journal

Under the Texas Constitution, D.W.I. suspects do not have a right to consult with counsel before an intoxilyzer test because the test is not considered a “critical stage” in proceedings. In Forte v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted the critical stage approach and held D.W.I. suspects do not have a right to counsel under the Texas Constitution until the filing of the complaint. The court reasoned because the statute implies consent to the test, and the suspect has no legal right to refuse the test, counsel’s presence would not serve to protect “any known right or safeguard,” …